Skip to main content

Full text of "A Scientific Investigation Of The Old Testament"

See other formats


A  Scientific  Investigation 
of  the  Old  Testament 


PH.D.,  D.D , 

Profuror  of  Semitic  Philology  m 
Princeton  Theokgtcal  Seminary 



IT  IS  the  purpose  of  the  present  volume  to  show 
that    intelligent    Christians    have    a    reasonable 
ground,  for  concluding  that  the  text  of  the  Old 
Testament   which   we   have   is   substantially   correct, 
and  that,  In  its  true  and  obvious  meaning,  it  has  a 
right  to  be  considered  a  part  of  the  "infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice"  that  we  have  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 

I  have  not  gone  into  a  discussion  of  miracles  and 
prophecy,  either  as  to  their  possibility  or  as  to  their 
actuality.  All  believers  in  the  incarnation  and  the 
resurrection  must  accept  this  possibility  and  this  ac- 
tuality. I  seek  rather  to  show  that,  so  far  as  anyone 
knows j  the  Old  Testament  can  be  and  is  just  what 
the  authors  claimed  it  to  be,  and  what  the  Christ  and 
the  New  Testament  writers  thought  it  to  be.  The 
theory  of  kenasis^so  far  as  it  affects  the  Lord's  knowl- 
edge of  the  Old  Testament,  is,  I  hope,  shown  to  be 
unnecessary,  because  the  facts  and  the  evidence  bear- 
ing upon  the  Old  Testament  support  the  testimony  of 

I  have  not  said  much  about  the  chronology  and  the 
geography  of  the  Old  Testament,  because  in  neither 
of  these  two  departments  of  history  are  the  facts  and 
the  evidence  sufficiently  well  established  to  give  us  re- 


liable  testimony  upon  the  details  of  the  Biblical  rec- 
ords as  they  bear  upon  these  two  important  subjects. 

As  to  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis,  the  extra- 
Biblical  sources  now  known  show  that  before  the  time 
of  Abraham  the  minds  of  men  were  much  occupied 
with  the  origin  of  the  universe;  and  also,  that  the 
account  in  Genesis  is  the  only  one  which  is  clearly 
monotheistic,  and  that  it  is  incomparably  superior  in 
rationality  to  the  ten  or  more  accounts  from  Egypt 
and  Babylonia.  The  Babylonian  account  of  the  flood 
confirms  the  probability  that  the  Biblical  records  de- 
scribe a  real  historical  occurrence  and,  as  Professor 
Sayce  said  long  ago,  shows  by  its  similar  combination 
of  the  so-called  J  and  P  documents  of  the  Pentateuch 
that  the  radical  hypothesis  of  the  post-captivity  com- 
position of  the  Biblical  record  of  the  deluge  is  abso- 
lutely contrary  to  the  facts.  The  time,  the  extent, 
and  many  of  the  circumstances  of  the  flood  are  still 
debatable;  but  that  there  was  a  flood  before  the  time 
of  Abraham  and  that  the  Genesis  account  of  it  is  cor- 
rect is  abundantly  supported  in  substance  by  the  evi- 
dence of  the  eleventh  tablet  of  the  Babylonian  record* 

The  method  followed  may  be  called  the  evidential 
method;  because  I  have  sought  to  follow  the  Laws 
of  Evidence  as  applied  to  documents  admitted  in  our 
courts  of  law.  I  presume  that  the  prinia  facie  evi- 
dence of  the  documents  of  the  Old  Testament  is  to  be 
received  as  true  until  it  shall  have  been  proved  false. 
I  hold,  further,  that  the  evidence  of  manuscripts  and 


versions  and  of  the  Egyptian,  Babylonian  and  other 
documents  outside  the  Bible  confirms  the  pnma  facie 
evidence  of  the  Biblical  documents  in  general  both  as 
to  text  and  meaning;  and  that  this  text  and  meaning 
cannot  be  corrected  or  changed  simply  in  order  to  be 
brought  into  harmony  with  the  opinions  of  men  of 
our  generation.  To  demand  that  we  should  verify 
every  statement  of  any  ancient  document  (or  modern 
for  that  matter)  before  we  can  reasonably  believe  it, 
is  demanding  the  impossible.  The  most  that  we  can 
reasonably  require  is  that  the  author  of  the  document 
and  the  document  itself  shall  stand  the  test  of  veracity 
wherever  their  statements  can  be  examined  in  the  light 
of  other  testimony  of  the  same  age  and  provenance 
and  of  equal  veracity  Examined  in  this  way,  I  con- 
tend that  our  text  of  the  Old  Testament  is  presump- 
tively correct,  that  its  meaning  is  on  the  whole  clear  and 
trustworthy,  and  that  we  can  as  theists  and  Christians 
conscientiously  and  reasonably  believe  that  the  Old 
Testament  as  we  have  it  is  what  it  purports  to  be  and 
what  Christ  and  the  apostles  thought  it  to  be,  and  what 
all  churches  have  always  declared  it  to  be — the  Word 
of  God  and  the  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

In  the  title  I  use  the  phrase  "Scientific  Investigation/1 
because  I  am  trying  to  judge  the  Old  Testament  docu- 
ments in  the  light  of  the  facts  made  known  in  the 
documents  of  the  nations  who  surrounded  and  in- 
fluenced the  people  of  Israel  through  all  its  history 
from  Abraham  to  Ezra.  Again,  I  have  ventured  to 


use  the  term  scientific,  not  merely  because  these  con- 
clusions are  based  on  knowledge,  but  because,  after  the 
introductory  pages,  I  have  presented  the  evidence  in  an 
orderly  manner,  treating  of  text,  grammar,  vocabulary, 
and  history  in  what  I  consider  to  be  a  logical  sequence. 
The  results  of  some  of  my  investigations,  such  as  those 
of  the  foreign  words  in  the  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  of  the  religion  of  Israel,  have  not  yet  been 
fully  published.  If  it  please  the  Lord  to  spare  my  life 
and  grant  me  health  I  hope  in  the  future  to  publish  the 
results  of  my  labors  on  these  and  other  subjects. 

It  may  help  the  less  learned  of  my  readers  if  I  ex- 
plain why  I  have  given  so  much  space  to  the  discus- 
sion of  text,  grammar,  and  vocabulary. 

As  to  the  text,  or  written  form,  of  the  documents 
of  the  Old  Testament,  as  they  issued  from  their  au- 
thors, it  is  obvious  that,  if  we  do  not  have  exact  copies 
of  the  original  writings,  it  will  be  impossible  for  us  to 
be  sure  that  we  Have  the  very  words  of  the  prophets 
who  wrote  or  approved  these  writings.  In  my  dis- 
cussion of  the  text,  therefore,  it  is  my  endeavor  to 
show  from  the  evidence  of  manuscripts,  versions,  and 
the  inscriptions,  that  we  are  scientifically  certain  that 
we  have  substantially  the  same  text  that  was  in  the 
possession  of  Christ  and  the  apostles  and,  so  far  as 
anybody  knows,  the  same  as  that  written  by  the  origi- 
nal composers  of  the  Old  Testament  documents* 


As  to  grammar,  since  the  critics  date  the  documents 
of  the  Old  Testament  largely  by  the  forms  and  syntac- 
tical constructions  of  the  language,  it  is  necessary  to 
show  that  these  forms  and  constructions  are  irrelevant 
as  evidence  of  the  time  at  which  a  document  was  writ- 

As  to  vocabulary,  since  all  the  commentaries  and  in- 
troductions to  the  Old  Testament  in  general,  or  to 
particular  books  or  documents  of  the  Old  Testament, 
are  full  of  conclusions  based  upon  the  origin,  or  mean- 
ing of  the  Hebrew  words,  both  as  to  the  time,  place, 
authorship  and  meaning  of  these  books  and  docu- 
ments, it  is  necessary  to  investigate  the  history  of  the 
Hebrew  language  and  of  the  particular  words  pro- 
duced in  evidence,  in  order  to  see  whether  these  words 
really  prove  what  they  are  alleged  to  prove,  with  re- 
gard to  the  origin  and  contents  of  the  books  and  docu- 

Perhaps  at  this  point  it  will  be  well  also  to  give  a 
statement  of  the  conservative  and  radical  views  as  to 
the  time  of  the  composition  of  the  books  of  the  Old 

The  radicals  claim,  in  general,  that  the  Canon  was 
not  completed  till  about  100  B.  C,  and  in  particular: 

1,  That  the  first  six  books,  that  is,  the  Pentateuch 
and  Joshua,  were  composed  by  at  least  a  dozen  re- 
dactors out  of  five  or  more  other  books  ( J,  E,  D,  H, 
and  P),  which  were  written  from  900  to  450  B.  C.; 
although,  with  the  exception  of  Ezra,  the  authors  and 


redactors  of  these  five  books  are  alike  unknown  to 
history,  either  as  to  name,  time  or  provenance.  The 
sources  of  their  information  are  also  unknown  to  his- 
tory, and  consequently  no  one  can  rely  upon  the  ve- 
racity of  any  statement  in  the  Hexateuch.  The  books 
of  Moses  are  simply  a  mythical  and  confused  account 
of  the  origin  of  the  people  and  institutions  of  Israel. 

2.  That  the  book  of  Judges  is  "hardly  strictly  his- 
tory/' but  "probably  traditions  preserved  among  the 
individual  tribes" ;  and  that  it  was  put  in  its  present 
form  "by  a  hand  dependent  on  P,"  i.  e.,  after  450 
B.  C.    Most  of  the  critics  now  admit  that  the  larger 
part  of  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  is  from  origi- 
nal sources  written  at  the  time  of,  or  shortly  after,  the 
events  recorded  in  them.     Ruth  and  Esther  are  ro- 
mances, idylls,  or  historical  novels.    Chronicles,  Ezra, 
and  Nehemiah  have  some  historical  matter;   the  rest 
was  invented  for  one  purpose  or  another,  mostly  to 
exalt  the  priestly  caste. 

3.  As  to  Hosea,  Amos,  Obadiah,  Nahum,  Habak- 
kuk,  Zephaniah,  Haggai,  Malachi,  Ezekiel,  and  most 
of  Jeremiah,  the  conclusions  of  the  radical  critics  as 
to  authorship  and  date  are  not  very  different  from 
those  of  the  conservatives.    Jonah  and  Joel  are  placed 
after  the  captivity;  Micah  and  Zechariah  are  divided 
into  three  parts  and  scattered  over  three  or  more  cen- 
turies.   Isaiah  has  a  dozen  or  more  authors,  scattered 
over  four  centuries.    In  all  the  books  anything  looking 
like  a  prediction  is  ruthlessly  cut  out  and  attributed  to 


some  unknown  redactor  of  an  age  at,  or  after,  the 
event.  Daniel,  because  of  its  apocalypses,  is  placed 
about  the  middle  of  the  second  century  B.  C. 

4.  As  to  the  other  books,  the  radical  critics  are 
united  in  declaring  that  the  Lamentations  was  not 
written  by  Jeremiah,  nor  the  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes 
and  the  Song  of  Songs  by  Solomon.  Some  parts  of 
Proverbs  and  all  of  Ecclesiastes  are  by  many  assigned 
to  Persian  or  Greek  times.  As  to  the  Psalms,  most  of 
the  critics  now  deny  that  David  wrote  any  of  them, 
and  many  critics  put  the  Psalms  after  the  captivity  and 
assign  many  of  them  to  Maccabean  times.  Job  is  gen- 
erally assigned  to  the  sixth  century  B.  C. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  conservative  position  is,  in 
general,  that  the  Canon  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament was  completed  in  the  fifth  century  B.  C.,  before 
the  succession  of  the  prophets  ceased.  As  to  the  par- 
ticular portions  of  the  Old  Testament,  their  view  is : 

1.  That  the  Pentateuch  as  it  stands  is  historical  and 
from  the  time  of  Moses;  and  that  Moses  was  its  real 
author,  though  it  may  have  been  revised  and  edited  by 
later  redactors,  the  additions  being  just  as  much  in- 
spired and  as  true  as  the  rest. 

2.  That  Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth,  Samuel,  and  Kings 
were  composed  from  original  and  trustworthy  sources; 
though,  in  the  case  at  least  of  Kings,  they  were  not 
completed  till  about  575  B.  C. 

3.  That  the  prophets  Hosea,  Joel,  Amos,  Jonah, 
Micah,  and  Isaiah  were  all  written  about  or  before 


700  B.  C.;  Obadiah,  Nahum,  Habakkuk,  and  Zeph- 
aniah  before  600  B.  C. ;  Jeremiah,  Lamentations,  and 
Ezekiel,  between  650  and  550  B.  C.;  Daniel,  Haggai 
and  Zechariah  between  550  and  500  B.  C.;  and  Mala- 
chi  in  the  fifth  century  B.  C. 

4.  That  there  is  good  and  sufficient  reason  for  con- 
cluding that  the  headings  of  the  Psalms  are  as  a  whole 
correct;  that  it  is  probable  that  all  of  the  Psalms  were 
written  before  400  B.  C.;  that  Ecclesiastes  and  the 
Song  of  Songs  and  most  of  the  book  of  Proverbs 
may,  for  all  we  know,  have  been  written  by  Solomon; 
that  Esther,  Ezra-Nehemiah  and  Chronicles  were 
written  before  400  B.  C;  and  Job  at  550  B.  C.,  or 

In  conclusion,  let  me  reiterate  my  conviction  that 
no  one  knows  enough  to  show  that  the  true  text  of  the 
Old  Testament  in  its  true  interpretation  is  not  true. 
The  evidence  in  our  possession  has  convinced  me  that 
at  "sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners  God  spake 
unto  our  fathers  through  the  prophets,"  that  the  Old 
Testament  in  Hebrew  '^being  immediately  inspired  by 
God"  has  "by  his  singular  care  and  providence  been, 
kept  pure  in  all  ages";  and  that,  when  the  wisdom  of 
men  and  the  law  of  God  had  alike  failed  to  save  hu- 
manity, in  the  fullness  of  time,  when  all  the  prepara- 
tion was  complete,  God  sent  forth  His  Son  to  confound 


the  wisdom  of  man  and  to  redeem  those  who  come 
under  the  Law.  Thank  God  for  the  Holy  Oracles. 
Thank  Him  yet  more  for  "the  unspeakable  gift"  of 
His  love,  who  brought  life  and  immortality  to  light  in 
His  gospel 

These  studies  originally  appeared  in  The  Princeton  Theological 
Review  for  1919,  and  after  thorough  revision,  with  the  addition  of 
much  new  matcnalt  are  now  published  in  this  permanent  form. 





II.     THE  EVIDENCE  :   TEXT 65 



V.     THE  EVIDENCE  •    HISTORY    167 


VII.     CONCLUSION   213 





IN  THE  common  law  of  England,  which  is  fol- 
lowed in  most  of  our  American  commonwealths, 
the  presumption  is  that  the  accused  is  innocent  of 
an  alleged  crime  until  he  shall  have  been  proven  guilty. 
It  may  be  called  the  evidential  system  of  jurisprudence. 
In  contradistinction  to  this  is  the  inquisitorial  system 
in  which  the  accused  is  supposed  to  be  guilty  unless  he 
can  establish  his  innocence.  These  two  systems  have 
their  followers  when  we  leave  the  forum  of  legal 
combat  and  enter  that  of  Biblical  literature  and  his- 
tory. Those  who  pursue  the  inquisitorial  method 
accuse  the  authors  of  the  Old  Testament  books  of 
anachronisms,  inconsistencies,  frauds,  forgeries,  and 
false  statements,  and  boldly  defy  anyone  to  disprove 
their  accusations.  The  would-be  defenders  of  the 
authors  are  very  much  in,  the  position  of  a  man  who 
would  have  defended  a  friend  in  the  clutches  of  the 
Spanish  inquisition.1  He  could  not  gain  access  to  the 
accused  and  th6  accused  had  no  means  ,of  communicat- 
ing with  him,  except  through  the  inquisitors  them- 
selves. So,  Moses  and  Isaiah  and  Jonah  are  unable 
to  communicate  with  us  who  would  defend  them; 

1  See  Emil  Reich:   The  Failure  of  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the 



and  those  who  accuse  them,  or  their  works,  of  mis- 
statements  and  falsehoods  wrest  their  words,  stigma- 
tize their  motives,  assume  that  their  own  opinions  are 
testimony,  and  declare  a  verdict  of  guilty.  They  de- 
nounce as  unscientific  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  the 
defenders  to  establish  the  truthfulness  and  harmoni- 
ousness  of  the  documents.  They  set  themselves  up 
as  accusers,  witnesses,  jury  and  judges,  and  call  un- 
scholarly  and  traditional  (word  of  scorn!)  all  who 
refuse  to  accept  their  verdict  They  cry  aloud:  To 
the  auto  da  fe  with  the  book  and  with  all  the  defend- 
ers thereof  1 


One  of  the  most  outstanding  examples  of  the  in- 
quisitorial method  of  criticism  is  Gen.  xiv,  where  we 
have  the  account  of  the  expedition  of  Chedorlaomer 
against  the  kings  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah.  Of  this 
expedition  and  of  the  defeat  of  it  by  Abraham,  Well- 
hausen  says,  that  they  "are  simply  impossibilities/' 
When  it  is  shown  that  the  kings  of  Babylonia  had 
made  similar  expeditions  as  far  as  the  Mediterranean, 
in  the  time  of  Lugal-zaggizi  and  Sargon  the  First  (cir* 
3000  B.  C.),2  and  in  the  time  of  Hammurabi  (2000 
B.  C.),8  and  that  in  the  time  of  Hammurabi,  there 

2  King,  A  History  of  Sumer  and  Akkad,  197,  360. 
sjeremias:    The  Old  Testament  in  the  Light  of  the  Ancient 
East,  I.  317,  322 



were  kings  with  the  names  of  Arioch,  Tidal,  and  with 
at  least  the  first  part  of  the  name  Chedorlaomer,* 
that  a  man  with  the  name  of  Abram  is  mentioned  as 
early  as  1950  B.  C.,5  the  critics  reply  that  some  un- 
known Jewish  archaeologist  of  some  time  between  900 
and  300  B.  C.,  who  happened  to  be  in  Babylon,  con- 
cocted this  little  story  in  glorification  of  Abraham  and 
succeeded  in  inducing  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  or  some 
later  Jewish  authorities  before  280  B.  C.  (when  the 
Septuagint  translation  was  made),*  to  accept  the 
fabrication  as  fact  and  to  embody  it  among  the 
archives  of  the  Jewish  people,  by  whom  it  has  ever 
since  been  considered  to  be  authoritative  history. 

In  favor  of  the  historical  character  of  this  narra- 
tive we  have  the  evidence  that  it  suits  the  time  and 
the  place,  that  the  names  of  some  of  the  principal 
actors  are  known  to  be  names  of  persons  living  in  the 
time  of  Hammurabi,  that  the  names  of  the  three 
kings  confederated  with  Chedorlaomer  have  been 
identified  as  kings  of  the  time  of  Hammurabi,  that 
Elam  had  at  that  time  and  never  afterwards  the 
hegemony  of  Western  Asia,  that  expeditions  of  the 

Kudur-Mabug,  and  Kudur-Nahundu  See  King:  The 
Letters  and  Inscriptions  of  Hammurabi,  I  LV. 

5  See  able  discussions  of  Gen  xiv  in  Clay  Light  on  the  Old 
Testament  from  Babel,  125-143,  and  Pinches.  The  Old  Testa- 
ment in  the  Light  of  the  Historical  Records  of  Assyria  and 
Babylonia,  p.  148. 

«  Or,  probably,  before  400  B  C  ,  the  latest  date  at  which  the 
Samaritans  could  have  acquired  their  copy  of  the  Pentateuch. 



kind  were  common  from  4000  B  C.  to  the  time  of 
the  Persians  and  that  oriental  armies  have  again  and 
again  been  put  to  flight  by  a  sudden  attack  of 
inferior  forces/ 

Against  the  historical  character  of  this  narrative 
we  have  the  assertion  of  Wellhausen  and  other  critics 
of  our  times  (only  about  4,000  years  after  the  sup- 
posed expedition!)  that  the  expedition  was  "simply 
impossible/'  and  that  it  is  probable  that  the  account 
may  have  been  fabricated  (or  forged)  by  some  per- 
son unknown,  at  some  time  unknown,  in  some  way 
unknown,  and  accepted  as  true  history  by  some  per- 
sons unknown,  at  some  time  unknown,  for  reasons 
unknown.  Not  one  item  of  evidence  in  the  way  of 
time,  place,  logic,  psychology,  language,  or  customs, 
has  been  produced  against  the  truthworthiness  of  the 
document.  The  prima  facie  evidence  is  supported  by 
the  circumstantial  evidence.  But  a  German  professor 
says  it  is  "simply  impossible";  English  followers 
echo  "simply  impossible,"  and  the  Americans  echo 
again  "simply  impossible,"  And  this  assertion  of 
simply  impossible  is  called  an  "assured  result  of  scien- 
tific criticism" ! 8 

7 See  Reich:  Loc  cit.f  p.  81,  Sayce  PSBA,  1918,  and  Filter 
PSBA,  XXXV.  205-216. 

8  The  evidence  on  Gen.  xiv  will  be  found  in  Hommel :  The 
Ancient  Hebrew  Tradition,  pp.  146-200;  Albert  T.  Clay:  Light 
on  the  Old  Testament  from  Babel,  pp.  125-143 ;  Alfred  Jeremias : 
The  Old  Testament  in  the  Light  of  the  Ancient  Host,  pp.  314- 
324;  Pinches:  The  Old  Testament,  etc.;  King:  The  Letters  and 



In  contradistinction  to  the  inquisitorial  method  is 
that  which  presumes  a  man  to  be  innocent  until  he 
is  proven  guilty.  As  applied  to  documents  it  proceeds 
on  the  presumption  that  a  document  is  to  be  pre- 
sumed to  be  what  it  purports  to  be  until  it  shall  be 
proven  that  it  is  not.  Thus  the  presumption  is  that 
the  so-called  Law  of  Holiness  (Lev.  xvii-xxvi)  was 
the  work  of  Moses,  because  seventeen  times  in  these 
chapters  it  is  said  that  Jehovah  spake  unto  Moses  say- 
ing what  is  in  the  following  section,  and  because  the 
Law  begins  with  the  statement  "Jehovah  spake  unto 
Moses  saying:  Speak  unto  Aaron  and  unto  his  sons 
and  unto  all  the  children  of  Israel,  and  say  unto  them : 
This  is  the  thing  which  Jehovah  hath  commanded," 
and  ends  with  the  subscription  (xxvi.  46)  :  "These 
are  the  statutes  and  ordinances  and  laws,  which  Je- 
hovah made  between  him  and  the  children  of  Israel 
in  Mount  Sinai  by  Moses/'  The  superscription  and  the 
subscription  mention  the  place,  subject-matter,  orig- 
inal speaker,  mediators,  and  persons  addressed.  The, 
contents  of  the  chapters  seem  to  substantiate  the 
claim  of  the  superscription  and  subscription. 

The  issue,  then,  is  clearly  drawn.     Anyone  who 

Inscriptions  of  Hammurabi,  I.  pp  49  ff.,  III.  68  ff.,  6-11,  237, 
Schorr:  Urkunden  des  Alt-babyhnischen  Zivil-undJProsesrechts, 
pp.  589,  591,  595,  612;  Filter:  Proceedings  of  the  Society^  of 
Biblical  Archeology,  for  1913  and  1914;  and  many  discussions 
by  Professor  Sayce. 



successfully  assails  the  veracity  of  this  document 
must  prove  either  that  there  is  no  Jehovah,  or  that 
He  cannot  address  or  speak  to  man,  or  that  there  was 
no  Moses  or  Aaron,  or  that  Jehovah  did  not  speak 
to  Moses,  or  that  there  were  no  children  of  Israel  at 
that  time,  or  that  the  laws  were  not  given  at  Sinai. 
Its  veracity  cannot  be  directly  assailed  by  an  attack 
on  its  language  for  the  document  does  not  say  that 
it  was  originally  written  in  Hebrew.  Nor  would  it 
prove  its  non-existence  to  show  that  it  was  not  men- 
tioned,9 nor  observed  for  four  hundred  or  a  thou- 
sand years  after  it  was  written;  nor  even  to  show 
that  before  the  time  of  Ezra  its  injunctions  were 
broken  and  the  very  opposite  of  them  obeyed.  Nor 
would  it  show  that  the  document  as  a  whole  was  not 
from  Moses,  if  it  could  be  demonstrated  that  certain 
parts  of  it  were  not  from  him,  the  critics  themselves 
being  witnesses;  for  they  all  claim  that  there  are 
interpolations  in  Amos  and  Jeremiah  while  uphold- 
ing their  genuineness  as  a  whole.10  Nor  would  it  show 
that  the  Law  of  Holiness  was  not  given  by  Moses,  if 
it  could  be  proven  that  he  did  not  write  it  with  his 
own  hand*11  Nor  would  it  prove  that  Moses  was  not 

9  The  code  of  Hammurabi  is  not  mentioned  in  any  known  docu- 
ment, except  in  the  code  itself.    Outside  of  the  Z ado  kite  Frag~ 
ments,  there  is  no  evidence  for  the  existence  of  the  Zadokite  sect, 
nor  for  the  practice  of  their  laws 

10  Compare  the  last  section  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark. 

11  The  critics  reiterate  the  statement  that  it  is  not  said  In  the 
Pentateuch   that  Moses   wrote   any   of   it  except  the   curse   on 



the  author  of  the  Law  of  Holiness  to  affirm  that  the 
same  kind  of  argument  which  has  been  used  with 
regard  to  it  would  prove  also  that  Moses  was  the 
author  of  the  Law  of  the  Covenant  in  Ex.  xx-xxiv, 
and  of  Deuteronomy  and  of  the  other  documents  of 
the  Pentateuch,  and  that  they  could  not  have  had  the 

Araalek,  the  Ten  Commandments  and  certain  other  portions,  as 
if  this  were  an  unanswerable  argument  against  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship of  the  Law.  Is  one  to  allege,  then,  that  Hammurabi  cannot 
be  called  the  author  of  the  code  named  after  him,  unless,  for- 
sooth, he  inscribed  it  with  his  own  hand?  And  yet  the  monu- 
ment expressly  ascribes  itself  to  Hammurabi  in  the  words  of  the 
epilogue  (Col.  xh.  59-67)  .  "In  the  days  that  are  yet  to  come, 
for  all  future  times,  may  the  king  who  is  in  the  land  observe  the 
words  of  righteousness  which  I  have  written  upon  my  monu- 
ment." Or,  is  Sennacherib  not  to  be  called  the  author  of 
Cylinder  No.  103,000,  unless  he  himself  inscribed  it?  Yet  it 
begins  with  his  name  and  titles  and  is  full  of  his  words  and  deeds 
recorded  in  the  first  person,  singular  number.  "I  fashioned  a 
memorial  tablet,"  "I  set  it  up,"  "I  flayed  Kirua,"  "I  sent  my 
troops."  It  is  all  I,  I,  I,  my,  my,  my,  from  beginning  to  end; 
and  yet,  it  is  certain  that  he  never  wrote  a  word  of  it  with  his 
own  hand  Or,  is  Darius  Hystaspis  not  the  author  of  the  Behi- 
stun  Inscription,  whose  sentences  are  largely  in  the  third  person 
and  of  which  nearly  every  section  begins  with  "Thus  saith  Darius 
the  king"?  What  a  subject  for  the  painter's  brush!  Darius,  the 
Persian  Achawnenid,  king  of  Babylon  and  of  the  lands,  king  of 
Upper  and  Lower  Egypt,  sitting  on  a  scaffolding,  his  chisel  in 
his  left  hand  and  his  mallet  in  his  right,  cutting  into  the  imperish- 
able rock  the  record  of  his  achievements  by  the  grace  of  Ahura- 
mazda!  And  how  about  Thothmes  I  and  III,  and  Rameses  II, 
III  and  XIII,  and  Shishak,  and  Tiglath-Pileser  I  and  III,  and 
Nebuchadnezzar  I  and  II,  and  others,  whose  numerous  and 
lengthy  records  have  been  preserved?  Are  we  to  suppose  that 
Moses  cannot  have  recorded  his  thoughts  and  words  and  deeds 
just  in  the  same  way  that  his  predecessors,  contemporaries,  and 
successors,  did? 



same  author.  For  if  Jehovah  was  really  the  source 
of  all  the  laws  as  the  documents  state,  then  any  ap- 
parent inconsistencies  between  the  codes  must  be 
possible  to  harmonize  or  must  be  due  to  errors  of 
transmission,  or,  at  least,  will  be  no  more  against  the 
consistency  of  the  laws,  if  they  were  all  written  dur- 
ing Moses'  lifetime  than  if  they  were  uttered  at 
widely  separated  periods  of  time.  And  if  they  were 
all  the  production  of  Moses,  and  he  merely  attributed 
them  to  Jehovah,  this  would  simply  remove  the  onus 
of  the  alleged  inconsistencies  from  the  shoulders  of 
Ezra  and  the  later  Jews  and  place  it  upon  the  back 
of  Moses.  Why  must  we  suppose  that  Moses  would 
have  avoided  all  inconsistencies,  but  that  Ezra  and  all 
the  numerous  unknown  but  cunning  redactors  who 
are  alleged  to  have  composed  the  Pentateuch  should 
have  retained  or  inserted  them?  It  is  passing 
strange,  also,  that  the  Pharisees  and  Rabbis  who  tried 
to  observe  fully  all  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  and 
actually  thought  they  were  doing  so,  should  have 
failed  to  find  in  them  those  inconsistencies  which  to 
the  modern  critic  seem  so  numerous  and  incompre- 
hensible and  irreconcilable. 

Nor  is  there  anything  in  The  Law  of  Holiness  that 
may  not  have  been  written  1,500  years  before  Christ 
as  well  as  500  years  before.  Indeed,  we  can  scarcely 
conceive  of  a  human  society  so  ignorant  as  not  to 
have  understood  all  of  its  injunctions.  No  lawyer  is 
needed  to  explain  its  simple,  clear,  and  concise  Ian- 



guage;  and  it  is  concerned  with  every  day  matters, 
such  as  the  shedding  of  blood,  the  relation  of  the 
sexes,  and  duties  to  parents,  strangers,  and  God.12 

Nor  can  it  be  shown  that  there  are  any  geograph- 
ical or  archaeological  references  in  the  Law  of  Holi- 
ness that  are  unsuitable  to  the  age  of  Moses.  Nor 
can  it  be  shown  that  the  ideas  of  Holiness  are  such 
as  could  not  have  been  known  to  Moses,  or  that  they 
are  so  Different  from  the  ideas  of  JE,  D  and  P  as 
that  they  could  not  all  have  proceeded  from  the  fer- 
tile brain  of  one  man  and  age.13  Where  the  ideas  of 

12 The  following"  is  an  analysis  of  the  Law  of  Holiness:  xvi, 
the  day  of  atonement,  xvu,  laws  concerning  blood;  xvni,  laws 
of  incest  and  lust,  xix,  xx,  laws  of  holy  living  such  as  fearing 
parents  (xix.  3),  rejecting  idols  (vs.  4),  offering  acceptable  peace 
offerings  (5-8),  helping  the  poor  (9,  10),  forbidding  stealing 
and  lying  and  profanity  (11,  12),  defrauding  the  workingman 
(13),  injuring  the  deformed  (14),  perverting  judgment  (15), 
being  a  talebearer  or  hater  of  neighbors  (16,  17),  vengeance 
(18),  mingling  of  cattle,  seed  or  textiles  (19),  fornication  (20- 
22),  eating  of  holy  fruit  (23-25),  or  blood  (26),  practising  magic 
(26),  or  mutilation  (27,  28),  or  prostitution  (29),  profaning  the 
Sabbath  or  the  sanctuary  (30),  defiling  themselves  with  familiar 
spirits,  etc  (31),  dishonoring  the  aged  and  stranger  (32),  and 
falsifying  the  weights  and  measures  (35,  36),  giving  seed  to 
Moloch  (xx.  1-5),  wizards  (6),  cursing  parents  (9),  adultery 
(10-21);  xxi  and  xxn,  laws  concerning  holiness  of  priests; 
xxiii,  the  feasts;  xxiv,  xxv,  various  laws  such  as  that  concern- 
ing the  oil  and  the  lamp  (1-4),  the  shew-bread  (5-9),  blasphemy 
(10-16),  and  the  lex  tahoms  (17-22) ;  xxvi,  epilogue 

18  The  reader  will  understand  that  the  critics  divide  the  first 
six  books  of  the  Bible  (called  the  Hexateuch)  into  five  principal 
documents;  the  Deuteronomyst  document  is  denoted  by  D,  the 
one  using  Jehovah  as  the  name  of  God,  by  J;  the  one  using 
Elohim  by  E;  the  priestly  document  by  P;  and  the  Law  of 
Holiness  by  H,  JE  is  employed  for  the  portions  where  J  and  E 
are  inextricably  intertwined. 



the  different  documents  are  the  same  and  are  ex- 
pressed in  the  same  language,  they  may  of  course  have 
been  by  the  same  author.  Where  the  ideas  differ  in 
phraseology  but  are  substantially  the  same,  this  is 
also  no  indication  of  different  authorship.14  Where 
the  subjects  are  the  same  and  the  ideas  expressed 
differ,  the  author  may  have  changed  his  mind,  or  he 
may  have  had  different  circumstances  and  conditions 
in  view.  Mohammed  changed  his  views  on  marriage 
and  other  subjects  and  he  changed  the  laws  to  suit 
his  changing  views.  The  condition  of  the  Muslim 
changed  after  he  went  to  Medina  and  especially  after 
he  set  out  to  conquer  the  world;  so,  he  began  to  make 
new  laws  for  his  anticipated  empire. 

Nor,  finally,  is  the  language  such  as  would  indicate 
a  time  inconsistent  with  that  of  Moses.  To  be  sure, 
there  are  in  this  particular  document  words  and 
phrases  which  occur  seldom,  or  never,  elsewhere.  But 
this  is  no  proof  of  age  or  authorship  but  simply  of 
subject,  aim,  and  method.  Nowhere  else  in  the  Old 
Testament  is  this  subject  of  holiness  treated  of  fully. 
The  aim  of  the  writer  is  to  secure  the  holiness  of  the 
people  and  he  bases  this  holiness  upon  the  holiness  of 
God.  Hence  the  frequent  use  of  the  phrases :  "I  Je- 
hovah am  holy,"  "I  am  Jehovah/*  and  "I  am  Jeho- 
vah which  sanctify  you."  Since  this  holiness  was  to 

14  Thus  in  the  Koran,  Mohammed  refers  five  different  times  to 
the  means  by  which  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  were  destroyed.  In 
two  cases  only  is  the  language  the  same. 



be  secured  by  obeying  Jehovah's  law,  we  have  the 
frequent  injunction  to  walk  in,  or  to  observe  and  do, 
the  statutes  and  judgments  of  Jehovah;  and  the 
threats  of  God's  setting  his  face  against  them  and  of 
their  even  bearing  their  own  sins  and  being  excom- 
municated if  they  profaned  his  name,  sanctuary,  or 
sabbaths.  As  to  words  occurring  in  this  passage 
alone,  or  infrequently  elsewhere,  this  is  characteristic 
of  every  document  and  almost  of  every  chapter  of 
the  Old  Testament.15  As  to  the  claim  that  certain 
technical  expressions10  indicate  a  different  author  or 
age  from  that  of  the  other  documents  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, it  is  an  assertion  entirely  unsupported  by  direct 
evidence  and  contrary  to  analogy.17  That  in  the  Law 
of  Holiness  the  word  for  man  should  be  repeated  in 
the  protasis  in  the  sense  of  "whoever"  1S  and  that 
this  phrase  should  occur  eleven  times  in  H  and  three 
times  in  P  but  not  at  all  in  JE  or  D  is  to  be  accounted 
for  partly  by  the  fact  that  JE  and  D  are  mostly  in 
the  second  person  and  H  and  P  in  the  third.  Fur- 
ther, it  is  not  clear  that  the  idea  of  "whoever"  as  ex- 
pressed by  the  repetition  of  the  word  for  man  is 

«  See  page  134  f. 

i«  Such  as  1»B>,  nar  and  May  (LOT,  49) 

1TThus  the  omen  texts  (or  laws)  published  by  Dennefeld 
(Babylonisch-Assyrtsche  Geburts-Omina,  Leipzig,  1914),  have 
eleven  words  not  found  elsewhere  to  denote  parts  of  the  human 
body  and  about  twenty  other  new  words,  or  new  meanings  of 



exactly  the  same  as  that  expressed  by  other  words  and 
combinations.  And  lastly  analogy  shows  that  such 
variations  are  no  necessary  indication  of  different 
author  or  date.19 

We  have  thus  shown  that  in  the  peculiarities  of  H 
there  is  nothing  opposed  to  its  Mosaic  authorship. 
But  how  about  its  authorship  by  another  than  Moses? 
Is  it  likely  that  a  forger  of  a  document  would,  scores 
of  times,  use  phrases  that  occurred  seldom,  if  ever, 
in  the  documents  recognized  as  having  been  written 
by  the  author  whose  works  he  was  imitating?  Would 
not  the  perpetrator  of  a  pseudepigraph,  intended  to  be 
accredited  as  a  genuine  work  of  the  author  whose 
name  was  falsely  attached  to  it,  have  had  the  prudence 
or  common  sense  to  avoid  as  far  as  possible  all  in- 
dications of  recognizable  variations  from  the  acknowl- 
edged originals  of  the  man  whose  name  he  had  at- 
tached ?  To  attempt  to  prove  a  forgery  by  showing 
the  alleged  writer  never  existed,  or  that  the  dates  of 

18  Thus  in  Dennef eld's  Geburts-Omina  there  are  five  different 
ways  of  expressing  the  idea  of  "the  one"  and  "the  other.'*  See 
his  introduction,  pages  22,  23,  The  above  remarks  are  based  on 
the  peculiarities  of  H  as  given  in  Dr.  Driver's  Literature  of  the 
Old  Testament,  pp.  49,  50.  The  same  arguments  which  I/OT 
uses  to  disprove  the  unity  of  the  Pentateuch  would  disprove  the 
unity  of  the  Koran.  We  have  in  Mohammed's  great  work  the 
same  variety  in  the  use  of  the  names  for  God,  duplicates,  syno- 
nyms, contradictions,  hapox  legomena,  and  peculiar  or  favorite 
expressions.  And  yet  all  admit  the  unity  of  authorship  of  the 
Koran!  See  my  article  in  PTR  for  1919  on  The  Use  of  "God" 
and  "Lord"  in  the  Koran, 



events,  and  peculiarities  of  language  are  wrong,  is 
fair  and  according  to  the  law  of  evidence;20  but  to 
expect  us  to  believe  that  the  forger  of  a  document 
which  was  designed  to  be  accepted  as  genuine  should 
have  made  its  language  differ  repeatedly,  obtrusively 
and  unnecessarily  from  that  of  another  document  by 
the  author  whom  he  is  trying  to  imitate  or  personate, 
is  contrary  to  common  sense  as  well  as  to  common 



With  regard  to  the  remaining  portions  of  the 
Pentateuch  there  is  a  stronge  presumption  that  they 
are  the  work  of  Moses;  for  we  find  that  the  collec- 
tions of  laws,  however  great  or  small  these  collections 
may  be  and  whatever  their  subject-matter,  are  in  the 
E  document  attributed  invariably  to  Moses.  The  so- 
called  Code  of  the  Covenant  in  Ex.  xix-xxiv  says  in 
the  prologue  that  Moses  went  up  unto  God  in  Mount 
Sinai  and  that  the  Lord  said  unto  him:  "These  are 
the  words  which  thou  shalt  speak  unto  the  Children 
of  Israel"  (xix.  2-6).  So  "Moses  went  down  unto 
the  people  and  spake  unto  them"  (xix.  25)  the  words 
of  chapter  xx  and  the  judgments  of  xxi-xxiii.  Then 
in  chapter  xxiv  we  are  told  that  Moses  told  the  people 

20  Compare  Bentley's  great  argument  against  the  genuineness 
of  the  Epistles  of  Phalaris  in  his  Dissertations  Upon  the  Epistles 
of  Phalaris. 



all  the  words  of  the  Lord  and  all  the  judgments  (vs. 

3)  and  Moses  wrote  all  the  words  of  the  Lord  (vs. 

4)  and  afterwards  read  the  book  of  the  covenant  in 
the  audience  of  the  people;   and  they  said,  "All  that 
the  Lord  hath  said  will  we  do,  and  be  obedient" 
(vs.  7). 

Tn  like  manner  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  is  again 
and  again  ascribed  to  Moses.  Thus  it  begins :  These 
be  the  words  which  Moses  spake  unto  all  Israel  on 
the  banks  of  Jordan  in  the  wilderness  of  the  Arabah 
in  the  land  of  Moab  (vs.  1-5).  Again,  in  the  epilogue 
in  xxix.  1,  it  is  said:  These  are  the  words  of  the 
covenant  which  the  Lord  commanded  Moses  to  make 
with  the  children  of  Israel  in  the  land  of  Moab,  be- 
sides (i.  e,,  apart  from,  or  in  addition  to)  the  cove- 
nants which  he  made  with  them  in  Horeb.21 

In  P  also  the  larger  portions  and  the  individual  laws 
claim  Moses  as  their  author.  Thus,  the  offering  for 
the  tabernacle  and  its  plan  were  commanded  by  God 
to  the  people  through  Moses  (Ex.  xxv.  1,  9  f.,  xxix. 
42,  43).  So  also  with  the  laws  of  offering,  Lev.  i.  1, 
2,  vii.  37,  38;  of  the  consecration  of  the  priests,  Lev. 
viii.  1,  5,  25,  36;  of  unclean  food,  Lev.  xi.  1,  46,  47; 

21  In  Deut  iv  1,  we  read :  "Hear  O  Israel,"  where  Moses  is 
represented  as  the  speaker  In  v,  1,  Moses  "called  all  Israel  and 
said  unto  them."  In  xxvii.  1,  11,  Moses  "commanded  the 
people"  In  xxxi  1,  Moses  "went  and  spake  to  the  people.1'  In 
xxxi  24,  it  is  said  that  "Moses  made  an  end  of  writing  the  words 
of  the  law  upon  a  book."  Compare  also,  xxxii.  44,  45,  and 
xxxin.  1. 



of  leprosy,  Lev.  xiii.  1,  xiv.  54-57;  and,  in  short,  of 
all  the  other  laws  of  the  Pentateuch. 

Now,  with  regard  to  any  one  in  particular  of  these 
codes  and  laws,  we  do  not  see  how  any  living  man 
can  have  the  assurance,  the  assumption  of  an  impos- 
sible knowledge,  to  assert  that  it  may  not  have  been, 
as  it  claims  to  be,  the  work  of  Moses.  Language, 
subject-matter,  and  circumstances,  all  favor  the  claim 
of  each  particular  section  to  have  been  what  it  pro- 
fesses to  be.  It  is  only  by  resorting  to  what  we  deem 
an  unjustifiable  method  of  procedure  that  any  case 
can  be  made  out  on  behalf  of  the  deniers  of  Mosaic 
authorship.  This  method  in  based  on  the  presump- 
tion that  the  documents  are  forgeries  and  that  the 
writers  were  guilty  of  false  statements  as  to  the  time 
and  place  and  authors  of  the  documents.  Being 
utterly  unable  to  substantiate  these  charges  by  direct 
evidence  bearing  on  the  separate  documents,  these 
deniers  of  Mosaic  authorship  resort  to  two  expedients. 
They  charge,  first,  that  some  of  the  documents  con- 
tain numerous  unnecessary  repetitions,  and  that  these 
repetitions  are  often  incongruous;  secondly,  that 
these  incongruities  result  from  the  fact  that  the  docu- 
ments represent  widely  different  periods  of  develop- 
ment in  the  history  of  Israel. 


Taking  up  these  charges  in  order,  it  is  admitted 
that  there  'are  numerous  repetitions  of  laws  bearing 

3  [33] 


on  the  same  subject,  but  it  is  denied  that  the  repeti- 
tions prove  that  Moses  was  not  the  author.  Every 
great  teacher  repeats.  Every  great  reformer  repeats. 
Witness  Paul  on  the  resurrection  and  on  salvation  by 
faith.  Witness  Mohammed  on  the  unity  of  God  and 
the  condemnation  of  unbelievers.22  The  duality,  or 
multiplicity,  of  authors  cannot,  then,  be  proven  by  the 
mere  fact  of  repetitions 2S  Nor  can  it  be  argued  from 
the  fact  that  we  cannot  see  the  sense,  or  the  reason, 
for  the  repetitions.  Nor  can  it  be  argued  from  the 
fact  that  the  repetitions  are  exactly  alike,  nor  from 
the  fact  that  they  differ.  Nor  can  diversity  of  author- 
ship be  argued  from  the  fact  that  similar  events  are 
recorded  as  having  occurred  in  the  life  of  the  same 
or  different  persons.2* 

To  be  sure,  the  critics  make  much  of  their  inability 
to  account  satisfactorily  to  themselves  for  many  of  the 
differences  and  even  adduce  their  ignorance  of  the 
reasons  for  them  as  if  it  were  evidence  against  Mosaic 
authorship.  And  yet,  good  and  sufficient  reasons  for 
most  persons  are  evident  in  some  of  the  repetitions. 
For  example,  take  the  laws  with  regard  to  the  altar. 

22  Every  sura  of  the  Koran  begins  with  the  words:  "in  the 
name  of  the  merciful  and  gracious  God'1;  out  of  114  suras  77 
condemn  the  unbelievers  by  name  and  most  of  the  others  by 

28  In  the  Koran,  there  are  scores  of  parallels. 

2*A11  history  and  romance  are  full  of  such  repetitions.  He- 
rodotus records  several  similar  attacks  on  Athens  by  the  Pisis- 
tratidae  and  two  or  more  expeditions  of  the  Persians  against  Greece. 
iCsesar  twice  says  that  he  built  a  bridge  over  the  Rhine  and  that 



Might  not  Moses  (or  at  least  Jehovah)  have  foreseen 
that  it  would  be  several  hundred  years  before  the  wor- 
ship at  the  central  sanctuary  could  be  established  and 
that  even  afterward  the  union  of  the  tribes  might  be 
disrupted,  so  that  men  like  Elijah  might  not  be  able  to 
go  to  the  central  altar  to  sacrifice  even  when  they 
would?  Could  a  God,  or  a  law-giver,  who  provided 
for  a  second  passover  for  those  who  could  not  attend 
the  first,  and  permitted  a  pair  of  turtle  doves,  or  even 
a  handful  of  flour  (a  bloodless  offering)  to  be  given 
by  those  who  were  too  poor  to  present  a  kid,  not  be 
expected  to  authorize  an  altar  for  special  cases  and 
circumstances  ?25 


The  second  charge  is  that  there  are  in  the  Penta- 
teuch at  least  five  principal  documents  representing 
different  periods  of  time  and  different  points  of  view; 
and  that  these  differences  of  aim  and  time  account 
for  the  alleged  incongruities  of  the  works  attributed 
to  Moses  and  exclude  the  possibility  of  Mosaic  author- 
ship. This  charge  is  based  upon  the  assumptions: 
(a)  that  Deuteronomy  (D)  was  written  in,  or  shortly 
before,  621  B.  C;  (b)  that  the  real,  or  alleged,  incon- 
gruities between  the  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  can  be 
explained  only  by  assuming  a  wide  difference  of  date 

he  sailed  twice  against  Britain.    Don  Quixote  and  Don  Caesar 
are  full  of  repetitions.    Everyone's  life  is  full  of  them.    So  was 
that  of  Abraham ;   so  was  that  of  Moses. 
as  Cf.  IKiii.  2,  3. 



in  the  time  of  their  composition  and  a  series  of  for- 
geries on  the  part  Q£  their  authors. 


For  the  assumption  that  Deuteronomy  was  written: 
in,  or  shortly  before,  621  B.  C.  there  is  absolutely 
no  direct  evidence.  The  testimony  of  Deuteronomy 
itself  is  that  it  was  given  by  Moses  in  the  plains  of 
Moab.  The  passage  in  2  Kings  xxii-xxiii  ascribes  it 
to  Moses  (xxiii.  25 ),  Josiah  attributes  the  wrath  of 
Jehovah  to  the  fact  that  the  fathers  had  not  hearkened 
to  the  words  of  the  book  that  had  just  been  found 
and  read  before  him  (xxii.  8-13).  Huldah,  the 
prophetess,  represents  Jehovah  as  saying,  I  will  bring 
upon  this  place  all  the  words  of  the  book  which  the 
king  of  Judah  hath  read  (xxii.  16).  The  elders  of 
Judah  and  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  king,  and  all  the  men 
of  Judah  and  all  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  and 
the  priests,  and  the  prophets,  and  all  the  people,  both 
small  and  great  heard  the  words  of  the  book  of  the 
covenant  which  was  found  in  the  house  of  the  Lord 
and  covenanted  to  perform  the  words  of  the  covenant 
that  were  written  in  this  book  (xxiii.  1-3).  Although 
the  book  of  Deuteronomy  contains  laws  affecting  the 
king  (xvii,  14  f.)  and  the  prophets  (xviii.  15  f.)  and 
the  priests  (xviii.  1  f.),  and  although  it  must  be 
admitted  that  kings  and  prophets  and  priests  had 
existed  in  unbroken  succession  from  the  time  of 
Samuel  down  to  the  time  of  Josiah,  and  that  the 



kings  and  prophets  and  priests  must  have  had  thel 
customary  laws  and  regulations,  yet  no  protest  against 
the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  newly-dis^ 
covered  book  was  made  by  king,  or  prophet,  or  priest. 
All  accepted  it  as  authoritative,  and  proceeded  to  carry 
its  injunctions  into  execution  (xxiii.  1-25). 

Against  this  evidence  of  the  documents  themselves, 
the  critics  make  the  charge  that  the  writers  of  the 
sources  of  2  Kings  xxii-xxiii  (that  is  "the  book  of 
the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Judah,"  cf.  xxiii.  28), 
the  composers  of  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles, 
and  Hilkiah  the  high  priest,  Shaphan  the  scribe, 
Huldah  the  prophetess,  and  Jeremiah  the  prophet, 
were  either  forgers  or  dupes;  and  that  Deuteronomy 
was  not  a  work  of  Moses  at  all,  but  a  composite  work 
of  an  unknown  author  put  together  or  at  least  pro- 
mulgated for  the  purpose  of  deceiving  the  people  into 
the  acceptance  of  a  great  reform  in  worship.  The 
kernel  of  this  reform  is  affirmed  to  be  the  confining 
of  the  worship  to  the  central  sanctuary  at  Jerusalem. 
To  be  sure  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  says  nothing 
expressly  about  Jerusalem.  Huldah,  also,  does  not 
mention  it  as  a  central  sanctuary  (2  Kings  xxii.  15- 
20).  The  king  and  people,  including  prophets,  priests, 
and  scribes,  do  not  specifically  mention  a  central 
sanctuary  in  their  covenant  with  Jehovah  (xxiii.  3), 
Jerusalem  itself  is  mentioned,  it  is  true,  in  xxiii,  23, 
as  the  place  where  the  passover  was  held;  but  ac- 
cording to  the  books  of  Kings,  the  temple  at  Jerusalem 



was  to  be  the  dwelling  place  of  Jehovah  ( 1  Kings  viii. 
29,  ix.  3),  in  accordance  with  the  promise  made  by 
God  through  Nathan  to  David  (2  Sam.  vii.  13). 
Jeremiah,  who  prophesied  in  the  days  of  Josiah, 
speaks  not  merely  of  the  fact  that  Jehovah  had  chosen 
Jerusalem  to  put  His  name  there  (vii.  11,  14,  xxxii, 
34) ,  but  also  says  that  at  the  first  Shiloh  had  been  the 
place  where  the  Lord  had  set  His  name  (xix,  12), 
Not  merely  in  the  Pentateuch,  but  also  thirty  times  in 
Joshua,  once  in  Judges  (xx.  17),  sixty  times  in 
Samuel,  and  thirteen  times  in  Kings,  the  ark  is  named 
as  the  center  of  the  worship  of  the  people  of  Israel. 
When  this  ark  was  removed  to  Jerusalem  by  David, 
and  not  till  then,  did  the  city  become  the  place  where 
men  ought  to  worship  (Jer.  iii.  16,  17).  Moreover, 
that  Jerusalem  was  recognized  as  the  place  of  the  cen- 
tral sanctuary  in  the  time  of  Solomon  is  clear  from 
the  fact  that  one  of  the  first  acts  of  Jeroboam,  son  of 
Nebat,  was  to  appoint  Bethel  and  Dan  as  rival  centers, 
so  as  permanently  to  remove  the  people  of  Israel  from 
the  influence  of  the  cult  at  Jerusalem  (1  Kings  xii. 

Thus  neither  for  their  general  charge  nor  for  their 
principal  specification  do  the  critics  find  any  direct 
evidence  in  Deuteronomy  or  Kings  nor  in  any  other 
Old  Testament  document.  Jeremiah,  whose  genuine- 
ness they  acknowledge,  is  silent  as  to  the  general 
charge,  but  absolutely  clear  in  his  evidence  against  the 
specification  with  regard  to  the  time  of  the  organiza- 



tion  of  the  central  sanctuary.  It  is  time  for  the  body 
of  intelligent  Christian  believers,  who  are  deemed 
capable  of  sitting  on  juries  in  a  court  of  common 
law,  to  assert  themselves  against  these  self-styled 
scholars  who  would  wrest  from  them  the  right  of 
private  judgment.  For  in  the  settlement  of  this  ques- 
tion no  special  scholarship  is  involved — no  knowledge 
of  Hebrew  or  philosophy.  The  English  version 
affords  all  the  facts.  The  evidence  is  clear.  On  the 
face  of  it,  it  is  all  against  the  critics.  Only  by  throw- 
ing out  the  evidence  of  the  very  document  on  which 
they  rely  for  the  proof  of  their  own  theory  and  by 
placing  a  childish  confidence  in  what  remains,  can 
they  find  any  support  for  their  destructive  views.26 

(b)     THE  FOUR  CODES  OF  LAW 

The  critics  charge  that  the  incongruities  which  they 
allege  are  to  be  found  between  the  code  of  the  cove- 
nant (E)  and  Deuteronomy  (D),  and  the  Law  of 
Holiness  (H),  and  the  priestly  codex  (P),  are  due 
to  the  fact  that  E  represents  the  law  as  it  existed  prior 
to  700  B.  C,  D  a  law  written  about  621  B.  C.,  H  a 
law  written  about  600  B.  C.,  and  P  a  law  written 
mostly  before  the  events  recorded  in  Neh.  viii-x. 
Since  the  direct  evidence  of  the  documents  themselves 

26  For  good  discussions  of  the  origin  of  Deuteronomy,  see 
Moller:  Are  the  Critics  Right?,  Finn:  The  Unity  of  the 
Pentateuch;  McKim:  The  Problem  of  the  Pentateuch;  Orr: 
The  Problem  of  the  Old  Testament;  and  Green:  The  Higher 
Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch 



is  against  this  fourfold  date  and  ascribes  all  four 
documents  to  Moses,  the  critics  have  undertaken  the 
difficult  task  of  proving  that  these  laws  constitute  a 
series  of  forgeries,  extending  over  a  period  of  about 
500  years,  committed  by  more  than  seventeen  differ- 
ent persons,  all  reformers  of  the  highest  ethical 
standards  and  all  devoted  to  the  service  of  Jehovah, 
the  God  of  truth.  Besides  mirabile  dictu,  the  for- 
geries were  all  successful  in  that  prophets,  priests, 
Levites,  kings,  and  people,  were  all  alike  induced  to 
receive  them  as  genuine  and  to  adopt  them  as  obliga- 
tory, as  soon  as  they  were  made  known  to  them.  The 
Jews  and  the  Samaritans,  the  Pharisees  and  the 
Sadducees,  the  Rabbis,  Aristeas,  Josephus,  Philo, 
Christ  and  the  Apostles,  all  accepted  the  combined 
work  as  of  real  Mosaic  authorship.  But  no  amount 
of  camouflage  could  deceive  the  critical  eyes  of  the 
German  professors  and  their  scholars  (all  of  whom 
agree  with  them;  hence  the  phrase,  "All  scholars  are 
agreed").  To  them  the  imperfections  of  the  codes 
and  their  disagreements,  yes,  even  the  particular  half 
century  in  which  each  law  was  promulgated,  are  as 
clear  as  the  spots  on  the  sun,  if  only  you  will  look 
through  their  glasses,  and  are  not  blinded  by  prejudice 
occasioned  by  faith  in  Jehovah,  or  Christ,  or  by  the 
ntles  of  evidence.  Now,  whether  those  who  believe 
in  Jehovah  and  Christ  are  blinded  by  prejudice,  or 
not,  it  seems  obvious  that  they  who  profess  to  believe 
in  both  cannot  be  expected  without  stultification  to 



ignore  the  testimony  of  all  the  documents  that  Jeho- 
vah Himself  was  the  real  author  of  the  laws,  Moses 
being  merely  his  mouthpiece,  or  prophet.  This  testi- 
mony cannot  be  set  aside  in  the  case  of  the  laws  with- 
out being  set  aside  also  in  the  case  of  the  prophets. 
There  is  no  more  ground  for  calling  it  a  form  of 
speech  in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other.  And  if  Je- 
hovah did  speak  the  laws  and  command  the  people  to 
obey  them,  it  must  seem  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
He  at  least  thought  that  they  were  harmonious. 
Christians,  also,  and  professedly  Christian  professors 
need  make  no  excuse  for  the  prejudice  that  this  testi- 
mony of  the  documents  themselves  is  confirmed  for 
them  (however  it  may  be  with  infidels)  by  the  at- 
testation of  the  New  Testament  writers  and  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  But  whether  Christians  or  infidels, 
we  should  all  be  bound  strictly  by  a  prejudice  in  favor 
of  the  rules  of  evidence.  Binding  ourselves,  then,  to 
abide  by  the  evidence,  let  us  proceed  to  state  the  evi- 
dence for  the  defense  in  the  case  of  the  critics  against 

First,  we  find  that  in  every  one  of  the  legal  docu- 
ments of  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  and  Deuter- 
onomy, the  superscription  as  in  Num.  xv,  xix,  xxxv, 
and  in  the  case  of  all  the  longer  collections  such  as 
Ex.  xx-xxiv,  xxv-xxxi,  Lev.  i-vii,  xvii-xxvi,  and 
Deuteronomy,  and  many  of  the  smaller  collections 
such  as  Ex,  xii.  1-28,  xxxiv,  Lev.  viii,  xiii,  xvi,  xxvii, 



Num.  i,  ii,  iv,  vi.  1-21,  viii.  1-4,  5-22,  xxvii.  6-23, 
xxviii-xxix,  xxx,  the  subscriptions  also  expressly  at- 
tribute their  authorship  to  Moses.  In  many  cases  the 
locality  and  the  time  m  which  these  codes,  or  special 
laws,  were  given  are  specified.  Thus,  Ex.  xii  was 
given  in  Egypt  in  the  first  part  of  the  first  month  (vs. 
1,  3);  Ex.  xix-xxiv,  at  Smai  in  the  third  month  of 
the  first  year  of  the  Exodus  (Ex.  xix.  1,  11) ;  Num. 
i.  1,  at  Sinai  in  the  first  day  of  the  second  month  of 
the  second  year  after  they  came  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt;  Deuteronomy,  in  the  land  of  Moab,  on  the 
first  day  of  the  eleventh  month  of  the  fortieth  year 
(i.  1,  3,  5).  In  other  cases  as  in  Lev.  xvii-xxvi  and 
Ex.  xxv-xxxi,  the  place  at  least  is  expressly  stated. 
Here,  then,  are  twenty  separate  documents  all 
ascribed  to  Moses  in  the  proper  place  and  manner 
with  dates  and  places  affixed. 

Secondly,  we  find  that  the  variations  in  the  form, 
treatment  and  subject-matter  of  the  laws  support  the 
claim  that  Moses  was  the  author.  Some  of  the  laws, 
as  Lev.  xi-xiii,  treat  of  but  one  subject;  others  as 
Ex.  xxxiv  treat  of  several  subjects;  and  others  as 
Lev.  xvii-xxvi  and  Deuteronomy  may  be  dignified 
with  the  name  of  code.  Some  of  them  as  Lev.  xvi 
are  so  constructed  that  scarcely  a  verse  could  be 
omitted  without  marring  the  effect  of  the  whole, 
whereas,  others  are  composed  of  many  parts,  each  dis- 
tinct in  its  purpose,  but  all  necessary  to  the  carrying 



out  of  the  laws  of  its  remaining  parts.27  Moreover, 
the  laws  of  the  covenant  of  JE  in  Ex.  xx-xxiv  and 
the  epitome  in  xxxiv.  1-26,  and  the  codes  of  H  and 
D  are  mostly  a  collection  of  short  injunctions  more 
or  less  disconnected  and  without  specification  as  to 
how  they  are  to  be  carried  out,  whereas  the  laws  in, 
P  are  generally  entirely  separated  from  other  laws, 
are  detailed  in  their  regulations  and  embrace  many 
matters  not  discussed,  or  barely  mentioned  in  the 
codes  of  JE,  D  and  H.  To  this  difference  in  treat- 
ment and  details  corresponds  also  a  difference  in 
literary  form.  The  laws  of  JE,  D  and  H  are  codal 
in  form  and  resemble  the  prototype  set  by  the  code 
of  Hammurabi  in  that  they  have  lengthy  prologues  or 
epilogues;  D  and  H  containing  at  the  end,  just  like 
the  Babylonian  code,  a  large  number  of  curses  upon, 
those  who  should  disobey  their  injunctions.  The  laws 
of  leprosy  vary  from  the  other  laws  in  accordance 
with  the  subject  of  which  they  treat.  As  to  the  laws 
of  P  there  is  an  analogy  to  the  laws  of  leprosy  in  the 
birth-omens,28  and  we  may  infer  from  the  frequent 
references  of  Nabunaid  to  the  necessity  of  discovering 
the  corner-stone  of  the  temples  originally  built  by 
Naram-Sin,  Hammurabi,  and  others  of  his  predeces- 

27  Again,  the  persons  addressed  differ.    In  the  codes  it  is  the 
whole  people  who  are  enjoined,  whereas  the  laws  of  P  affect 
ordinarily  only   certain   classes  of   individuals,   such  as  priests, 
lepers,  and  Nazantes. 

28  See  the  Babylonisch-Assynsche  Geburts-Omwa,  t>>  kudwig 
Dennefeld,  Leipzig,  1914. 



sors,  that  these  temens  or  corner-stones  contained 
detailed  plans  for  the  construction  of  the  houses  of 
the  gods,  corresponding  to  the  plan  of  the  tabernacle 
in  Ex.  xxv-xxx.29  The  narrative  in  Ex.  xxxvi-xl  of 
the  manner  in  which  this  plan  was  carried  out  under 
the  direction  of  Bezaleel  is  paralleled,  also,  in  many 
respects  by  the  account  in  the  autobiography  of  the 
Erpa  Tehuti,  the  director  of  the  artificers  of  the 
temples,  and  shrines  of  Hatshepsut,  who  according 
to  most  Egyptologists  was  queen  of  Egypt  two  cen- 
turies before  the  times  of  Moses.30  The  form  of  the 
numeration  of  Num.  i-iv  bears  many  resemblances  to 
those  of  the  Annals  of  Tahutmes  IIL3X  The  bound- 
aries of  the  land  given  in  Num.  xxxiv  resemble 
closely  similar  forms  in  Babylon.82  The  form  of  the 
ceremonies  of  the  day  of  atonement  in  Lev.  xvi  may 
be  compared  with  the  Ritual  of  the  Divine  Cult,88  and 
the  laws  of  issues,  jealousy,  and  the  red  heifer  (Lev. 

38  In  King's  Letters  and  Inscriptions  of  Hammurabi  II,  pi.  242, 
No.  107,  we  have  the  plan  of  the  temple  of  Sippar  at  Jahrusum 
made  during  the  period  of  the  first  dynasty  of  Babylon. 

80  Budge:  The  Literature  of  the  Egyptians,  London,  1914,  p. 

31Petrie:  History  of  Egypt,  II,  103  f. 

si  Hinke :  A  New  Boundary  Stone  of  Nebuchadnezzar  I,  and 
the  tablet  from  the  time  of  Hammurabi  in  KB,  IV,  17.  The 
Egyptians  had  boundaries  for  countries,  nomes,  and  farms.  See 
Breasted's  Ancient  Records  of  Bgypt,  V  109,  and  Hinke's  note  in 
A  New  Boundary  Stone  of  Nebuchadnezzar  If  p.  9.  See,  also, 
King's  Babylonian  Boundary  Stones. 

8* Budge,   op.  at.,  p.  248. 



xv,  Num.  v,  xix)  with  the  Ritual  of  Embalmment.8* 
That  minute  directions  for  the  conduct  of  sacrifices, 
similar  to  those  in  Lev.  i-vii,  must  have  been  in  use 
among  the  Egyptians  is  evident  from  the  Liturgy  of 
Funerary  Offerings  found  in  the  Pyramid  Texts;85 
as  also  from  the  Liturgy  of  the  Opening  of  the 
Mouth.8'  rThat  detailed  directions  for  the  selection 
and  clothing  of  priests  like  those  in  Leviticus  must 
have  existed  among  the  Egyptians  is  to  be  seen  in  the 
Liturgy  of  the  Opening  of  the  Mouth,87  and  the  form 
of  the  regulations  of  Leviticus  has  a  parallel  in  the 
inscription  of  Agum-Kakrimi  (1350  B.  C.)  which 
describes  the  dress  of  Merodach  and  Sarpanit  (KB, 
III,  I,  135  f.) ;  and  especially  in  the  dedication 
cylinder  of  Nabonidus  containing  the  account  of  the 
consecration  of  his  daughter  as  a  votary  of  Nannar.88 
We  thus  see  that  the  various  forms  in  which  the 
sections  of  the  law  are  preserved  to  us  in  the  Penta- 
teuch are  paralleled  in  almost  every  instance  by  the 
forms  of  laws  to  be  found  in  known  documents  of 
ancient  Babylon  and  Egypt  dating  from  1000  to  4000 
(?)  B,  C.  And  what  in  general  is  true  of  the  form 
is  true  also  of  the  contents  of  the  laws.  The  civil 
and  criminal  laws  of  E,  D,  and  H,  bear  a  striking 

**Id.  247. 

85 Budge:   op.  at,  16. 
86  Id.  13. 
*ild.  p.  14. 

88  See  Miscellaneous  Inscriptions  in  the  Yale  Babylonian  Col- 
lection, by  Albert  T.  Clay,  Vol  I,  pp.  66-75. 



resemblance  to  those  found  in  the  Code  of  Ham- 
murabi.39 The  moral  precepts  find  their  prototype 
and  often  their  parallels  in  the  maxims  of  Ptah-hotep 
(3000  B.  C.),  and  in  the  moral  precepts  of  the  125th 
chapter  of  the  Book  of  the  Dead.40  As  to  the  cere- 
monial laws  it  can  be  claimed  that  the  elaborate, 
lengthy,  and  intricate,  systems  of  worship  centering 
around  the  numerous  temples  of  the  polytheistic 
Babylonians  and  Egyptians  make  the  system  of  wor- 
ship and  religious  observances  enjoined  in  H  and  P 
seem  in  comparison  models  of  clearness,  simplicity, 
and  ease  in  execution. 

In  the  third  place,  the  laws  of  Moses,  as  Emil 
Reich  has  so  well  argued,41  demand  a  single  great 
originator.  Granting  a  great  man  like  Moses,  the  pro- 
phetic mediator  of  God's  ideas,  and  the  fabric  of  the 
tabernacle,  with  the  priesthood,  and  the  sacrifices, 
and  the  sacred  seasons,  and  the  laws  of  holiness,  and 
the  covenants  between  the  holy  people  and  their 
unique  God,  rises  before  us  as  naturally  as  the  con- 
stitution of  the  imperial  Caesars  from  the  mind  of 
Augustus,  or  the  religion  of  Islam  from  the  life  of 
the  Arabian  prophet,  or  the  Christian  Church  from 
the  life  and  death  and  precepts  of  its  Founder.  It 
was  the  idea  of  God  which  Moses  had  that  was  the 

89  See  especially  Muller :  Die  Gesetee  Hamtnurabis  and  Kohler : 
Hammurabi's  Gesete. 

40 18th  dynasty  or  earlier.    Budge  •  Egyptian  Literature,  52,  22. 

41  The  Failure  of  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Bible.  See,  also, 
Naville's  The  Higher  Criticism  m  Relation  to  the  Pentateuch. 



spring  of  his  activities,  the  source  and  unifier  of  his 
thoughts  and  laws.  No  one  can  deny  that  the  idea 
of  a  unique  God  was  first  obtained  from  the  Israel- 
ites nor  that  their  literature  always  ascribes  the  first 
clear  and  full  apprehension  of  this  idea  to  Moses. 
How  much  of  it  he  got  from  his  meditations  beneath 
the  desert  skies  and  how  much  by  the  direct  revela- 
tion of  the  all-wise  and  all-powerful  Jehovah,  may  be 
questioned;  but  that  he  had  it,  is  the  concurrent  testi- 
mony of  J  and  E  and  D  and  H  and  P  and  of  all 
Jewish  literature  in  legislation,  history,  and  song. 
Prophets,  priests,  kings,  poets,  and  people, — all  had 
this  great  idea,  and  all  unite  in  saying  that  they  de- 
rived it  from  Moses.  And  whatever  Israelites  were 
the  first  to  be  possessed  with  the  Old  Testament  idea 
of  an  only  God,  let  us  remember  that  some  Israelite 
certainly  must  have  been  thus  possessed,  seeing  that 
the  idea  is  to  be  found  in  ancient  literature  in  the  Old 
Testament  and  there  alone.  What  more  natural,  then, 
than  that  the  great  thinker  who  first  grasped  the  idea 
in  its  fulness  should  have  found  a  revolution  wrought 
in  the  whole  system  of  his  thinking.  The  universe  with 
all  its  rolling  years,  the  sun,  the  moon,  the  stars,  the 
earth  with  its  seas  and  islands,  its  plants  and  living 
creatures,  must  all  be  correlated  to  the  great  I  AM, 
who  made  them  all.  And  a  greater  than  he  has  said 
that  the  law  was  ordained  by  angels  through  the  hand 
of  a  mediator. 

But  the  most  engrossing  subject  of  his  thought 


must  have  been  man  in  his  relation  to  the  earth  and 
God  and  sin  and  death  and  redemption.  And  so  he 
gathers  up  the  history  and  the  traditions  of  the  past 
and  centers  the  whole  about  the  idea  of  a  promise 
and  the  covenants,  the  covenant  with  Adam,  the 
covenant  with  Noah,  and  the  covenant  with  Abraham. 
And  when  God  makes  a  covenant  with  the  people  of 
Israel  through  him  as  mediator  he  sets  all  his  mind 
and  energies  to  work  to  enable  the  people  to  observe 
their  part  of  the  covenant  until  the  star  should  arise 
out  of  Jacob  and  he  whose  right  it  is,  that  prophet 
like  unto  himself,  should  come,  whom  Israel  should 
hear,  and  to  whom  should  be  the  obedience  of  the 
nations.  And  with  this  great  thought  in  mind  he  sets 
himself  to  work  to  separate  the  Israelites  from  all 
the  surrounding  nations  and  from  the  polytheistic 
nations  which  had  ruled  them  in  the  past.  He  takes 
the  two  great  conceptions  of  natural  religion,  holiness 
and  righteousness,42  and  seeks  to  separate  them  from 
their  idolatrous  associations  and  to  raise  them  to  a 
higher  ethical  and  religious  plane  in  the  service  of 
the  one,  ever-living,  and  true  God. 

As  for  a  language  and  a  literary  form  in  which  to 
express  his  thoughts,  he  did  not  have  to  invent  them. 
They  were  already  there.48  All  he  had  to  do  was  to 

42  vnp  and  p*tt» 

43  We  have  shown  this  already  for  the  form.    As  to  the  exist- 
ence of  the  Hebrew  language  before  the  time  of  Moses,  it  is  abun- 
dantly shown  ui  the  proper  names  of  the  inscriptions  of  the  times 



infuse  new  meaning  into  the  old  vehicles  of  thought, 
as  in  later  times  the  New  Testament  writers  did  with 
the  vocables  of  Greece,  and  Mohammed  with  those  of 
the  Arabs." 

As  for  the  festivals,  there  were  already  plenty  of 
them  in  use  among  the  Babylonians  and  Egyptians 
and  doubtless  among  the  Israelites  themselves, — New 
Year,  and  New  Moons,  and  Sabbaths.  He  simply 
had  to  take  the  old  seasons  and  sanctify  them  to 
better  purposes.45  Sacrifices  there  also  were  and 
altars  and  priests.  He  brings  them  all  into  ordered 
harmony  with  his  idea  of  holiness  and  righteousness 
in  the  service  of  Jehovah.  Ethics  there  were.  He 
gives  them  the  sanction  of  the  divine  command,  and 
approval.  Customs  there  were,  laws  of  clean  and  un- 
clean food,  laws  of  jealousy,  and  revenge  and  disease 
and  personal  uncleanness,  and  fringes  on  garments, 
and  tattooing,  and  vows  and  inheritances,  and  slavery 
and  marriage.  He  brings  all  into  his  all  embracing 
scheme  and  makes  them  all  subserve  the  one  great 
purpose  of  bringing  and  keeping  the  people  in  obedi- 
ence to  their  covenant  God.  Requirements  and 
observances  were  multiplied  until  it  was  impossible 

of  Hammurabi,  Tahutmes  III  and  Amenophis  IV,  and  in  the  111 
common  terms  of  the  Amarna  letters.  See  Knudtzon:  Die  l&l- 
Amarna-Tateto,  p.  1545  f,  and  W.  Max  Mueller:  Die  Palastina- 
liste  Thutmosis  III. 

44  E,  g.  in  the  case  of  hanif. 

45  It  is  not  meant  that  some  entirely  new  festivals  may  not 
have  been  added. 

4  [49] 


for  the  people  not  to  sin;  but  for  the  sins  there  was 
atonement  and  for  the  sinners,  substitution,  redemp- 
tion and  forgiveness,  of  a  God  that  was  long-suffer- 
ing and  gracious,  plenteous  in  mercy,  forgiving 
iniquity  and  transgression  and  sin,  though  he  would 
by  no  means  spare  the  guilty.*6 

Fourthly,  against  this  prima  facie  case  in  favor  of 
the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  laws  and  against  the  life  of 
Moses  and  the  history  of  Israel  as  recorded  in  the 
books  of  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers  and  Deuter- 
onomy, the  critics  bring  a  general  charge  and  a  num- 
ber of  specifications.  The  general  charge  is  that  the 
Pentateuch  was  not  the  work  of  Moses,  but  that  it, 
together  with  the  book  of  Joshua,  is  a  compilation  of 
the  works  of  seventeen,  or  more,  authors  and  of  laws 
and  traditions  of  little  historic  value  gathered  to- 
gether during  a  period  of  five  or  sbc  hundred  years 
from  800  or  900  B.  C.  to  300  B.  C.  Inasmuch  as  no 
claim  is  made  in  Genesis  or  Joshua  that  they  are  the 
works  of  Moses,  we  claim  the  privilege  (without  pre- 
cluding or  prejudicing  the  right  of  Moses  to  be  con- 
sidered the  author  of  Genesis)  of  confining  for  the 
present  discussion  the  defense  of  Mosaic  authorship 
to  the  four  last  books  of  the  Pentateuch.  And,  as 
the  charge  involves  the  question  of  the  authorship,  as 
well  as  the  much  more  important  question  of  the  his- 

"That  is,  those  who  refused  the  means  of  grace  or  wilfully 
disobeyed  his  commands,  like  the  man  who  gathered  sticks  on 
the  Sabbath  day,  or  Korah,  Dathan  and  Abiram. 



toricity  of  the  books  we  shall  discuss  first  of  all  this 
fundamental  question  of  authorship. 

AUTHORSHIP.  It  must  then,  clearly  be  defined  what 
exactly  is  meant  by  Mosaic  authorship.  Certainly,  it 
cannot  mean  that  to  be  the  author  Moses  must  have 
written  his  literary  works  with  his  own  hand.  Else, 
would  Prescott  not  be  the  author  of  the  Conquest  of 
Mexico,  nor  Milton  of  Paradise  Lost,  nor  the  kings 
of  Egypt,  Babylon,  Assyria,  and  Persia,  of  their  in- 
scriptions, nor  Jesus  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 
Lest  this  statement  should  seem  too  naive,  let  us  re- 
call that  a  favorite  and  reiterated  traditional  argu- 
ment of  the  critics  against  Mosaic  authorship  is  based 
on  the  fact  that  it  is  not  expressly  said  that  he  was 
charged  by  God  to  write  anything  but  the  curse 
against  Amalek  and  an  account  of  the  wanderings  in, 
the  wilderness  (Ex.  xvii.  14,  Num.  xxxiii.  2).  Be- 
sides these  small  portions  of  the  narrative,  he  is  said 
to  have  written  the  code  of  the  covenant  in  Ex.  xx- 
xxiv,  and  a  portion  at  least  of  Deuteronomy.41  In 
fact  it  may  reasonably  be  inferred  from  Deut.  xxxi. 
9,  24-26,  iv.  44,  1,  5,  xxviii.  58,  61,  xxix.  20,  26,  and 
other  passages,  that  the  whole  Pentateuch,  or  at  least 
all  of  the  legal  portions,  was  intended  by  the  writers 
of  these  passages  to  have  been  designated  as  having 
been  written  by,  or  for,  Moses. 

But  even  if  he  did  not  write  a  word  with  his  own 

*7  See  Dr.  Green:  On  the  Pentateuch,  p.  37. 



hand,  it  is  evident  that  whoever  wrote  the  book 
meant  to  imply  that  the  authorship  of  Moses  extends 
to  the  laws  and  visions  and  commands  which  God 
gave  to  him  in  the  same  manner  that  the  Code  of 
Hammurabi  was  the  work  of  the  king  whose  name  it 
bears.  That  is,  the  laws  came  through  him  and  from 
him.  This  is  the  fundamental  authorship  for  which 
we  contend,  and  which  we  claim  to  have  been  unim- 
peached  by  all  the  testimony  that  has  been  produced, 
in  the  endeavor  to  impair  our  belief  that  as  John  says : 
The  law  was  given  by  Moses. 

The  case  then,  as  it  stands,  is  as  follows.  The  docu- 
ments of  the  Tetrateuch  state  that  Moses  at  expressly 
stated  places  and  times  wrote,  or  caused  to  be  writ- 
ten,48 certain  parts  of  them.  The  critics  charge  that 
these  statements  of  the  documents  are  all  false.  What 
proof  have  they  to  substantiate  this  charge? 


First,  they  allege  that  "Moses  wrote"  in  these  pas- 
sages is  not  a  forgery,  but  simply  a  technical  expres- 
sion, or  form  of  speech.  But  what  evidence  have  they 
for  this  allegation?  None  whatever;  but  on  the  con- 
trary, the  evidence  of  the  profane  literature  and  of  the 
other  books  of  the  Old  Testament  is  all  against  it. 

As  early  as  the  fourth  dynasty  of  Egypt,  documents 

48  The  verbs  may  be  pointed  as  Hiphil, 


are  dated  and  the  name  of  the  authors  given/9  and  in 
Babylon,  as  early  as  the  dynasty  of  Hammurabi,  docu- 
ments are  dated  as  to  month,  day,  and  year,  and  the 
names  of  the  scribes  and  the  principal  persons  engaged 
in  the  transactions  recorded  are  given.60 

In  the  Biblical  documents  also,  it  is  the  custom  to 
giye  the  author  of  the  legislation.  Thus  in  the  book 
of  Joshua,  the  earlier  legislation  is  invariably  attrib- 
uted to  Moses,51  and  the  new  regulations  are  ascribed 
to  Joshua  himself.52  So  in  Samuel,  the  old  laws  are 
ascribed  to  Moses  and  the  new  ones  to  Samuel.53  So 
in  Kings,  Solomon  regulates  his  kingdom  and  Jero- 
boam the  son  of  Nebat  regulates  the  worship  of 
Israel  with  laws  that  are  never  ascribed  to  Moses, 
but  to  the  kings  themselves,  who  are  represented  as 
departing  in  large  measure  from  the  law  of  God 
already  known  (1  Ki.  viii-xi;  xii.  25-33;  xiv.  7-16). 
So  in  Chronicles  David  divides  the  priests  and  L/evites 
and  writes  out  the  pattern  of  the  tempte.  Jehoshaphat 
himself  gives  laws,  and  sets  judges  in  the  land,  and 
gives  them  charge  as  to  their  duties  (2  Chron.  xix. 
5-11),  and  proclaims  a  fast  without  reference  to  the 
laws  of  Moses;  and  Hezekiah  sets  the  Levites  ac- 
cording to  the  commandment  of  David  (2  Chron. 

49  See  Breasted's  Ancient  Records  of  Egypt,  I,  891. 

50  See    Schorr :     Urkunden    des    altbabylomschen    Zvtil-    und 

51  i.  7,  xx.  2,  xxiii.  6. 
82xxiv.  26. 

«» 1  Sam.  viiL  6-22. 



xxix.  25-27).  In  Nehemiah,  the  singers  and  the 
porters  keep  the  word  of  their  God  according  to  the 
commandment  of  David  and  of  Solomon  his  son 
(Neh  xii.  45)  64  Moreover,  is  it  not  marvelous  that 
no  example  has  been  found  in  pre-Christian  litera- 
ture of  the  ascription  to  Moses  of  a  law  not  found 
in  the  Pentateuch?  You  may  be  sure  that  if  one 
such  were  known  it  would  have  been  proclaimed  by 
the  traducers  of  the  unity  of  the  Pentateuch  with  a 
blare  of  trumpets,  for  it  would  be  the  unique  speci- 
men of  direct  evidence  bearing  on  their  alleged  com- 
mon use  of  the  phrase  to  denote  non-Mosaic  author- 
ship But  no.  Tobit  has  his  hero  burn  the  fish's 
liver  at  the  command  of  an  angel,  not  according 
to  a  law  of  Moses.  The  Zadokite  fragments  never 
ascribe  their  additions  to  the  Pentateuchal  laws  to 
Moses.  Therefore,  let  those  who  allege  that  the 
phrase  "the  Lord  said  to  Moses"  is  a  legal  fiction  pro- 
duce some  evidence  or  let  the  indictment  o£  the  claim 
of  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  to  Mosaic  authorship 
be  dropped.  Some  later  writer  by  mistake  or  inten- 
tion surely  might  have  ascribed  one  law  at  least  not 
found  in  the  Pentateuch  to  Moses.  But  no  such 
ascription  has  been  found.  No,  not  one. 

Again,  we  find  that  no  law  of  the  four  books  from 
Exodus  to  Deuteronomy  inclusive  is  in  the  Penta- 

M  Whenever  Chronicles  and  Nehemiah  were  written,  their  testi- 
mony shows  that  the  writer  did  not  know  anything  about  a  legal 
fiction  ascribing  all  laws  to  Moses. 



teuch,  or  anywhere  else  in  the  pre-Christian  Jewish 
literature,  attributed  to  anyone  but  Moses.  The 
modern  critic  asserts  that  the  laws  called  Mosaic  were 
not  given  by  him  but  that  they  were  written  by  at 
least  seventeen  different  authors  and  redactors;  and 
yet  not  one  of  these  critics  can  mention  the  name  of 
even  one  of  these  seventeen.  To  be  sure,  some  of 
them  have  assumed  that  Hilkiah  forged  the  portion 
of  Deuteronomy  which,  according  to  the  accounts  in 
Kings  and  Chronicles  (the  only  sources  of  our  in- 
formation on  the  subject)  Hilkiah  himself  attributed 
to  Moses.  And  we  find  that  some  have  alleged  that 
Ezekiel  may  have  written  the  Code  of  Holiness  in 
Lev.  xvii-xxvi,  but  unfortunately  for  the  critics, 
Ezekiel  who  is  never  backward  about  affixing  his 
name  to  his  other  works,  abstained  from  doing  so  to 
the  work  under  consideration. 

Again  some  have  asserted  that  Ezra  may  have 
written  P  or  even  have  composed  the  whole  Penta- 
teuch ;  but  here  again  they  draw  on  their  imagination 
for  their  facts,  since  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
both  state  clearly  that  Zerubbabel  and  Ezra  and  Nehe- 
miah established  in  Jerusalem  the  laws  and  institu- 
tions that  had  been  given  by  God  to  Israel  through 

55  Thus,  according  to  Ezra  iii.  3,  Jeshua  and  Zerubbabel  built 
the  altar,  "as  it  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses/1  and  offered  sac- 
rifices and  set  the  priests  and  the  Levites  in  their  offices  "as  it 
is  written  in  the  book  of  Moses"  (vi.  18).  According  to  Neh. 




In  the  next  place,  all  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  at- 
tributed to  Moses  are  either  expressly,  or  impliedly, 
said  in  the  record  to  have  been  given  at  certain  places, 
that  is,  either  in  Egypt,  or  somewhere  on  the  way 
from  Egypt  to  the  Jordan.  This  evidence,  as  to  the 
localities  in  which  the  documents  were  written,  so  im- 
portant in  establishing  the  genuineness  of  any  docu- 
ment, is  almost  absolutely  ignored  'by  the  assailants 
of  Mosaic  authorship.  What  kind  of  lawyer  would 
he  be  who  attacked  or  defended  the  genuineness  of  a 
letter  without  considering  whether  the  locality  where 
it  was  written  was  mentioned  and  whether  paper,  ink, 
language,  and  contents,  harmonized  with  the  alleged 
place  of  its  production?  Now  it  is  said  that  the  fol- 
lowing sections  of  the  law  were  commanded  in  the 
localities  cited,  to  wit:  Ex.  xii  in  Egypt  (Ex.  xii. 
1  )  ,  Ex.  xix-xxiv,  xxv-xxxi,  and  xxxiv,  at  the  moun- 
tain; Lev.  i-vii,  in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai;  Ex.  xix, 

via.  1,  3,  Ezra  the  scnbe  brought  and  read  the  book  of  the  law 
of  Moses,  which  the  Lord  had  commanded  to  Israel.  And  in  vs. 
14,  we  are  told  that  they  "found  written  in  the  law  which  the 
Lord  had  commanded  by  Moses"  certain  laws  with  regard  to  the 
feast  of  Tabernacles.  In  ix.  3,  it  is  said  that  the  book  of  the  law 
of  God  was  read  and  it  is  acknowledged  in  vs.  34  that  the  kings 
and  princes  and  fathers  had  not  kept  the  law.  But  the  people 
covenanted  (x.  29)  to  walk  in  God's  law  which  was  given  by 
Moses  the  servant  of  God  Again,  in  xm.  1,  we  are  told  that 
"they  read  in  the  book  of  Moses"  On  the  other  hand,  the  serv- 
ice of  song  is  said  to  have  been  reinstituted  after  the  ordinance 
of  David,  king  of  Israel  (Ezra  m  10). 



1,  2,  3,  20,  xxiv.  12,  13,  16,  xxxi.  18,  xxxiv.  2,  29, 
Lev.  vii.  38,  xxv.  1,  xxvi.  46,  xxvii.  34,  Num.  i.  1, 
iii.  1,  ix.  1,  out  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation 
(Lev.  i.  1).  Others  are  preceded  by  the  phrases: 
after  they  had  left  Egypt  (Lev.  xi.  45,  xxii.  33,  xxiii. 
43,  xxv.  55,  Num.  xxv.  41);  from  the  camp  (Lev. 
xxiv.  23,  Num.  v.  2;  when  ye  come  into  the  land 
(Num.  xv.  2,  18,  xxxiii.  51,  xxxiv.  2,  Deut.  xxvi.  1, 
xxvii.  2) ;  while  they  were  in  the  wilderness  (Num. 
xv.  32) ;  in  the  plains  of  Moab  (Num.  xxvi.  3,  63, 
xxvii.  3  [by  implication],  xxxi.  1,  xxxvi.  13,  Deut.  i. 
5,  xxix.  1). 

Now,  the  critics  adverse  to  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch  have  been  sharp  enough  to  see  that  if 
they  can  throw  doubt  upon  the  accuracy  of  the  docu- 
ments with  regard  to  these  places,  they  will  impugn 
the  veracity  of  the  accounts.  So,  after  a  hundred 
and  fifty  years  of  diligent  search  they  find  one  ap- 
parent flaw.  It  seems  that  E  and  D  use  Horeb  in 
place  of  the  Sinai  of  J  and  P  as  the  locality  of  the  giv- 
ing of  the  law.  Horeb  is  said  to  be  the  designation 
of  the  mountain  of  God  used  in  the  northern  part  of 
Palestine  where  E  is  assumed  to  have  been  written 
and  Sinai  that  used  in  Judah,  where  J  and  P  were 
written.  But  the  critics  fail  to  attempt  even  to  show 
why  D,  a  document  of  the  southern  kingdom,  should 
have  followed  E  instead  of  J,  and  why  P  should  have 
failed  to  harmonize  this  alleged  discrepancy,  or  even 
to  have  remarked  upon  it.  Perhaps,  the  simplest  and 



most  obvious  explanation  is  the  best.  Horeb  and 
Sinai  were  in  a  sense  the  same,  just  as  the  Appa- 
lachian chain  and  the  Alleghany  Mountains  and 
Chestnut  Ridge  are  the  same.  I  was  born  near  the 
Chestnut  Ridge  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains  of  the 
Appalachian  chain.  In  Europe  I  might  speak  of  the 
Appalachian  Mountains  as  my  birthplace;  in  Cali- 
fornia, of  the  Alleghanies;  in  Western  Pennsylvania, 
of  the  Chestnut  Ridge.  But  I  was  born  in  only  one 
place.  So,  as  Hengstenberg  long  ago  said,56  "at  a 
distance  the  mountain  of  God  was  called  Horeb;  near 
at  hand,  it  was  called  Sinai,  or  once  possibly 
Horeb/' ST  The  use  of  mountain  before  Horeb  is  no 
proof  that  it  was  a  single  eminence  and  not  a  ridge; 
for  Mount  Ephraim  was  "the  hill  country  of 
Ephraim"  or  as  Hastings  Dictionary  says,58  "the 
mountain  ridge  in  Central  Palestine  stretching  N.  to 
S.  from  the  Great  Plain  to  the  neighborhood  of  Je- 

56  On  the  Genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch,  II,  327. 

57  Ex.  xxxhi  6,  m  a  passage  of  which  Dr.  Driver  said:   "No 
satisfactory  analysis  has  been  effected,"  LOT,  38.    In  his  work 
entitled  Prom  the  Garden  of  Bden  to  the  Crossing  of  the  Jordan, 
Sir  William  Wiloox  claims  that  Horeb  and  Smai  were  both  in 
the  northern  part  of  the  peninsula  and  that  the  law  was  given 
from  both     Prof.  Sayce,  also,  puts  both  of  them  in  the  north- 
eastern part  of  the  peninsula.    If  Sinai  is  a  part  of  Horeb  the 
whole  argument  of  the  critics  falls. 

"Vol.  I,  p,  727. 



But  lastly,  not  merely  are  all  of  the  documents  of 
the  Tetrateuch  (with  the  exception  of  a  few  ascribed 
to  Aaron)  ascribed  to  Moses,  and  the  place  where 
most  of  them  originated  indicated,  many  of  them  are 
dated  as  to  year,  month,  and  day.  The  critics  quietly 
ignore  these  dates.  They  would  possibly  attribute 
them  to  the  cunning  of  the  forger,  and  assert  that 
they  were  inserted  with  the  express  purpose  of  giv- 
ing to  the  documents  in  which  they  occur, the  appear- 
ance of  verisimilitude.  Think  of  a  counsel  arguing 
before  a  court  that  the  fact  that  a  document — a  will, 
a  contract,  a  letter,  a  cheque — was  correctly  dated 
was  prima  facie  evidence,  not  that  it  was  genuine,  but 
that  it  was  a  forgery!  Let  the  critics  show  at  least 
that  the  dates  are  not  in  the  form  of  dates  used  in  the 
time  of  Moses,  But  this  they  cannot  do.  But,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  can  be  shown  that  in  every  par- 
ticular the  dates  are  of  the  same  form  as  those  that 
were  used  before  1500  B.  C.  There  are  two  full 
forms  of  dates  in  the  Pentateuch.  The  first  gives  the 
order  of  day,  month,  year,  as  in  Num.  i.  1 :  "the  first 
day  of  the  second  month  of  the  second  year  after 
their  going  out  from  Egypt";  and  the  second,  the 
order  of  year,  month,  day,  as  in  Num.  x.  11,  "in  the 
second  year,  in  the  second  month,  in  the  twentieth  day 
of  the  month,"  and  Deut  i.  3,  "in  the  fortieth  year 
in  the  eleventh  month  on  the  first  day  of  the  month," 



and  Num.  xxxiii.  38,  "in  the  fortieth  year  of  the  go- 
ing out  of  the  children  of  Israel  from  the  land  of 
Egypt  in  the  fifth  month  on  the  first  day  of  the 
month."  The  distinguishing  feature  of  these  two 
systems  of  dating  is  that  the  former  puts  the  year  last 
and  the  latter  the  year  first.  The  first  system  was  used 
in  Babylon  and  Nineveh  from  the  earliest  documents 
down  to  the  latest,  and  the  second  system  was  used 
in  Egypt  in  like  manner  from  the  earliest  dynasties 
down  to  the  time  of  the  Ptolomies.  Thus  "in  the 
month  Ab,  the  22d  day,  in  the  year  after  king  Rim- 
Sin  had  conquered  Isin";59  "In  the  month  Ayar,  day 
20,  of  the  year  after  king  Samsuiluna,  etc/';60  "in 
the  month  Shebat  the  14th  day,  the  second  year  after 
the  destruction  of  Kis."  61 62  It  will  be  noted  that  in 
every  particular  but  one  the  dating  of  Num.  i.  1  is 
like  the  datings  from  the  time  of  Abraham.  This  par- 
ticular is  that  Numbers  puts  the  day  before  the  month. 
This,  however,  was  a  usual  departure  of  the  Hebrew 
writers  in  using  the  Babylonian  system.  Jeremiah  Ui. 
12  is  the  only  place  in  the  Old  Testament  where  we 
find  the  order  month,  day,  year.  In  Hag.  i.  IS,  iL 
10,  Zech.  i.  7,  and  Ezra  vi.  15,  all  from  post-cap- 
tivity times,  we  find  the  order  day,  month,  year,  as 

59  Schorr :  Urkunden  des  altbabylonischen  ZM-  und  Prozess- 
rechts,  p  53. 

•o/d.  153. 

•i/d  214 

62  These  kings  lived  in  or  about  the  time  of  Hammurabi.  See, 
also,  Schorr,  p.  279,  328,  416,  for  other  examples. 



in  Num.  i.  I.  In  all  o£  these  post-captivity  writings 
the  name  of  the  king  is  given  exactly  as  we  find  it  on 
the  Babylonian  documents  from  the  time  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar II;  whereas  in  Num.  i.  1,  the  dating  is 
"after  the  going  out  of  Egypt"  just  as  in  the  earliest 
Babylonian  documents. 

Examples  of  the  Egyptian  system  of  dating  are  to 
be  found  in  numerous  places  in  Petrie's  History  of 
Bffypt™  in  Breasted's  Ancient  Records,9*  and  in  the 
Oxyrynchus  Papyri?*  It  is  worthy  of  note,  also,  that 
the  phrase  "after  the  going  out  from  Egypt"  is 
paralleled  in  many  cases  in  the  earliest  Egyptian  rec- 
ords.ett  The  Egyptian  system  is  the  one  psed  com- 
monly in  the  Old  Testament  by  the  writers  who 
wrote  before  the  return  from  Babylonia,  and  occa- 
sionally by  those  who  wrote  after  550  B.  C.  Thus 
we  find  the  order  year,  month,  day  in  Jer.  xxxix.  2; 
xii.  4,  31;  Ezek.  i.  1;  viii.  1;  xxiv.  1;  xxix.  1,  11; 
xxx.  20;  xxxi.  1;  xxxii.  1;  xxxiii.  21;  and  Hag.  i. 
1;  and  the  order  year,  day,  month  in  Ezek.  xx.  1; 
xxvi.  1;  xxxii.  17;  xl.  1;  Zech.  vii.  1. 

We  see,  therefore,  from  the  above  evidence  that  of 
the  four  full  datings  in  the  Pentateuch  three  follow 
the  Egyptian  system  and  one  the  old  Babylonian.  Of 
the  three  following  the  Egyptian  system  one  is  in  the 

«*  E.  *.  II,  67,  100-103. 

<*E.  g.  I,  137,  139,  140,  145,  160. 

«E.  g.  I,  170,  178,  etc. 

««  Breasted  loc.  cit.    I,  54. 



prologue  to  D8r  and  two  are  in  P.08  The  one  in  Num. 
i.  1  follows  the  Babylonian  order  and  belongs  also  to 
P  But  the  clause  affixed  (i.  e.,  after  the  going  out 
from  Egypt)  resembles  the  dates  from  the  Ham- 
murabi dynasty  and  not  those  from  the  time  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  or  later.  So  that  in  respect  to  dates, 
as  well  as  in  respect  to  names  and  places,  we  find  that 
the  genuineness  of  the  documents  of  the  Pentateuch 
cannot  be  successfully  assailed. 


In  regard  to  no  one  of  these  great  prima  facie 
marks  of  genuineness  in  documents — names,  places, 
dates — have  the  destructive  critics  been  able  to  show 
that  the  statements  of  the  Pentateuch  are  false.  As 
to  these  three  specifications  of  the  indictment,  the  as- 
sured result  of  scientific  criticism,  in  strict  adherence 
to  the  law  of  evidence,  is  that  Moses  gave  the  laws 
which  have  his  name  at  the  times  and  places  indicated 
in  the  documents  attributed  to  him  as  the  mouthpiece 
of  Jehovah. 

"i.  3. 

wNum.  ad,  11;  xxxiii.  38;   both  assigned  in  LOT  to  P. 






HAVING  thus  shown  by  three  examples  taken 
from  the  documents  of  the  Pentateuch  that 
from  a  prima  facie  point  of  view  these  docu- 
ments are  substantiated  by  the  evidence  from  the 
forms  of  contemporary  documents  and  by  the  evi- 
dence as  to  their  author  and  as  to  the  times,  places, 
and  contents  of  their  composition,  we  shall  proceed 
to  consider  the  attacks  of  the  critics  upon  the  text,  the 
grammar,  vocabulary  and  contents  of  the  documents 
of  the  Old  Testament,  on  the  basis  of  whose  "assured 
results"  they  seek  to  establish  their  reconstruction  of 
the  literature  and  history  of  the  people  of  Israel. 

In  the  remainder  of  this  chapter  and  in  the  imme- 
diately following  pages,  I  shall  confine  myself  to  the 
text,  and  shall  endeavor  to  show  that  in  view  of  the 
evidence  bearing  upon  its  origin  and  transmission 
the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Massoritic  Bible  now  in  our 
possession  is  substantially  reliable.  In  this  and  the 
succeeding  discussions,  I  shall  seek  to  follow  without 
prejudice  the  laws  of  evidence  as  laid  down  in  Sir 
James  Fitzjames  Stephen's  Digest  of  the  Law  of 
Evidence  in  so  far  as  these  laws  relate  to  documents. 
Where  the  evidence  is  already  published  and  acces- 
sible to  all,  I  shall  merely  refer  my  readers  to  the 
5  [65] 


works  containing  the  evidence.  In  cases  where  new 
evidence  bearing  on  the  subject  can  be  produced  I 
shall  go  more  largely  into  particulars  in  order  to  show 
the  grounds  for  my  statements  As  it  will  be  impos- 
sible within  the  limits  of  a  work  such  as  this  to 
give  all  the  items  of  evidence,  numerous  citations 
of  the  sources  of  the  testimony  will  be  given;  since 
it  is  the  purpose  of  the  writer  to  remove  the  discus- 
sion as  far  as  possible  from  the  field  of  subjective 
opinion  to  that  of  objective  reality. 

In  the  space  at  my  disposal,  it  will  be  impossible 
to  do  more  than  suggest  the  reasons  why  I  think  that 
the  charges  against  the  general  reliability  of  the  Mas- 
soritic  text  cannot  be  supported  by  the  documentary 
evidence,  that  is,  by  the  "documents  produced  for  the 
inspection  of  the  Judges,"  69  and  by  the  opinion  of 
experts  which  may  be  called  evidence  as  to  what  the 
evidence  of  the  documents  really  is  70 

69  See  for  this  definition  of  "evidence,"  Sir  James  Fitzjames 
Stephen's  work  A  Digest  of  the  Law  of  Evidence,  p.  3.    He  de- 
fines evidence  as  "documents  produced  for  the  inspection  of  the 
Court  or  Judge"     In  this   case  of   the  critics  against   Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  eve*y  intelligent  reader  may  con- 
sider himself  the  Court  and  judge  and  jury. 

70  The  fact  that  a  person  is  of  the  opinion  that  a  fact  in  issue, 
or  relevant  or  deemed  to  be  relevant  to  the  issue,  does  or  does 
not  exist  is  deemed  to  be  irrelevant  to  the  existence  of  such  fact, 
except  when  "there  is  a  question  as  to  any  point  of  science  or 
art "    When  such  a  question  arises,  "the  opinions  upon  that  point 
of  persons  especially  skilled  in  any  such  matter  are  deemed  to 
be  relevant  facts." 




The  testimony  of  experts  as  to  what  the  evidence 
really  is,  is  especially  necessary  as  to  all  subjects  re- 
quiring special  study  or  experience,  such  as  all  matters 
of  science  and  art.71  "It  is  a  general  rule  of  evidence 
that  witnesses  must  give  evidence  of  facts,  not  of 
opinions"™  But  "facts,  not  otherwise  relevant,  are 
deemed  to  be  relevant  if  they  support  or  are  incon- 
sistent with  the  opinions  of  experts,  when  such 
opinions  are  deemed  to  be  relevant"  "Whenever  the 
opinion  of  any  living  person  is  deemed  to  be  rele- 
vant, the  grounds  on  which  such  opinion  is  based  are 
also  deemed  to  be  relevant/'  and  "an  expert  may  give 
an  account  of  experiments  performed  by  him  for  the 
purpose  of  forming  his  opinions."  73 

In  fact,  in  questions  of  philology  and  history  it  is 

71  Science  and  art  "include  all  subjects  on  which  a  course  of 
special  study  or  experience  is  necessary  to  the  formation  of  an 
opinion"  Persons  thus  qualified  are  called  "experts."  "The 
opinion  as  to  the  existence  of  the  facts  on  which  his  [Le.,  the 
expert's]  opinion  is  to  be  given  is  irrelevant  unless  he  perceived 
them  himself  " 

72 Italics  in  Stephen  He  says  further:  "An  expert  may  not 
only  testify  to  opinions,  but  may  state  general  facts  which  are 
the  result  of  scientific  knowledge"  "The  unwritten  or  common 
law  of  other  states  or  countries  may  be  proved  by  expert  testi- 
mony." Genuine  writings  "may  be  used  for  comparison  by  the 
jury"  or  "by  experts  to  aid  the  jury."  "Experts  in  handwriting 
may  also  testify  to  other  matters,  as  e.g.,  whether  a  writing  is 
forged  or  altered,  when  a  writing  was  probably  made,  etc." 

73  See  Stephen's  Digest,  100-112.  The  words  not  in  quotation 
marks  and  the  italicizing  are  due  to  the  present  writer. 



the  experiments,  i  e.,  the  investigations  of  the  orig- 
inal sources,  which  afford  the  grounds  for  the 
opinions  of  the  expert,  that  are  the  most  important 
part  of  his  evidence;  for  they  give  the  facts  on  which 
his  conclusions  are  based.  If  the  experiments  or  in- 
vestigations have  been  faulty,  either  from  an  incom- 
plete induction  of  the  facts,  or  from  a  wrong  inter- 
pretation of  them,  the  grounds,  or  reasons,  or 
opinions,  based  on  the  facts  will  also  be  faulty, 


In  the  case,  therefore,  of  a  literary  document  the 
first  fact  to  investigate  and  establish  is  the  original 
text  of  the  document,  and  the  second  is  the  meaning 
of  that  text.  When  the  original  text  can  be  pro- 
duced the  correct  interpretation  of  it  is  the  principal 
matter,  unless  charges  of  interpolation  are  made.  If, 
however,  the  original  document  cannot  be  produced, 
certified  copies  of  the  original,  or  copies  approximat- 
ing as  nearly  as  possible  to  the  original,  may  be  intro- 
duced as  evidence,  and  will  have  value  for  all  parties 
to  a  controversy  in  proportion  as  they  are  recognized 
as  genuine  copies  of  the  original.  It  is  this  fact  that 
makes  the  question  of  the  transmission  of  the  text 
of  the  Old  Testament  fundamental  to  all  discussions 
based  upon  the  evidence  of  that  text.  Only  in  so  far 
as  we  can  establish  a  true  copy  of  the  original  text 
shall  we  have  before  us  reliable  evidence  for  our  in- 
spection and  interpretation.  In  regard  to  the  Old 



Testament  therefore,  the  first  question  to  determine  is 
whether  we  have  a  reliable  copy  of  the  original  text. 
It  is  my  purpose  to  convince  my  readers  that  the 
answer  of  experts  to  this  question  must  be  an  un- 
hesitating admission  that  in  the  text  of  our  common 
Hebrew  Bibles,  corrected  here  and  there,  especially 
by  the  evidence  of  the  ancient  versions  and  through 
the  evidence  from  palaeography,  we  have  presumptively 
the  original  text.  That  is,  we  have  it  with  sufficient 
accuracy  to  be  reliable  as  evidence  on  all  great  ques- 
tions of  doctrine,  law,  and  history.  In  support  of 
this  opinion,  we  shall  in  accordance  with  Sec.  54  of 
Stephen's  Digest,  give  the  following  grounds,  with 
the  statement  of  the  investigations  on  which  they  are 


1.  An  examination  of  the  Hebrew  manuscripts  now 
in  existence  shows  that  in  the  whole  Old  Testament 
there  are  scarcely  any  variants  supported  by  more 
than  one  manuscript  out  of  200  to  400,  in  which  each 
book  is  found,  except  in  the  use  of  the  full  and  de- 
fective writing  of  the  vowels.74  This  full,  or  defec- 
tive, writing  of  the  vowels  has  no  effect  either  on  the 
sound  or  the  sense  of  the  words.  These  manuscripts 
carry  us  back  at  least  to  the  year  916  A.  D.,  the  date 
of  what  is  probably  the  oldest  MS.  of  any  large  part 
of  the  Hebrew  Bible. 

7*  See  the  collections  of  variants  by  Kennicott  and  DeRossi. 



2.  The  Massorites  have  left  to  us  the  variants 
which  they  gathered  and  we  find  that  they  amount  al- 
together to  about  1,200,  less  than  one  for  each  page 
of  the  printed  Hebrew  Bible.75 

3.  The  various  Aramaic  versions   (or  Targums), 
the  Syriac  Peshitto,  the  Samaritan  version,  and  the 
Latin  Vulgate  support  with  slight  variations  the  pres- 
ent text.76 

4.  The  numerous  citations  in  the  New  Testament, 

75  These  variants  are  to  be  found  on  the  bottom  margin  of  the 
Hebrew  printed  Bible. 

76  See  my  comparisons  of  the  Hebrew  and  Peshitto  texts  of 
Chronicles  in  Hebraica,  Vol    XIV,  282-284     A  comparison  of 
the  proper  names  of  the  Hebrew  original  and  the  Syriac  version 
shows  hundreds  of  variations  of  sight,  largely  between  r  and  dt 
n  and  y,  and  k  and  b;  hundreds  more  of  variations  due  to  sound, 
as  sh  and  s^z  and  s,  d  and  t,  d  and  £,  b  and  m,  b  and  pt  m  and  n, 
I  and  r,  n  and  /,  n  and  r  (very  uncommon),  af  yf  mf  or  r,  or  k, 
with  gutturals,  and  palatals,  interchanging  in  almost  every  pos- 
sible way.    One  great  peculiarity  of  the  Peshitto  is  the  frequency 
with  which  the  proper  names  are  translated  and  the  large  num- 
ber of  cases  of  the  transposition  of  letters.     This  statement  is 
based  on  a  collection  of  the  variation  of  the  proper  names  of 
the    Pentateuch,    Joshua,    Judges,    Samuel,    Kings,    Chronicles, 
Ezra,  and  Nehemiah,  made  and  possessed  by  myself  in  manu- 
script   There  are  ovei  two  thousand  variants  in  this  collection. 
The  Samaritan  Targum  scarcely  varies  at  all  in  sense  from  the 
Samaritan-Hebrew  original.    Its  variants  are  mostly  in  the  gut- 
turals which  are  used  almost  indiscriminately.     This  statement 
is  based  upon  a  concordance  made  by  myself  with  the  assistance 
of  Prof.  Jesse  I,.  Cotton,  D  D  ,  Rev.  Robert  Robinson,  and  Rev. 
C.  D.  Brokenshire      The  variations  of  Jerome's  version  arose 
mostly  from  a  vowel  pointing  different  from  the  Massontic     The 
textual  variations  of  the  Targums  are  similar  to  those  of  the 
Hebrew  manuscripts  and  of  the  Massontic  readings.    See  Cap- 
pelus  :  Crtttca  Sacra  II,  858-892 



Josephus,  Philo,  and  the  Zadokite  Fragments  carry 
us  back  to  the  year  40  to  100  A.  D.  These  citations 
show  that  those  who  used  them  had  our  present  text 
with  but  slight  variations.  The  numerous  citations 
in  the  Hebrew  of  the  Zadokite  Fragments  are  espe- 
cially valuable  as  a  confirmation  of  the  Hebrew  text 
of  Amos  and  other  books  cited.77 

5.  The  Septuagint  version,  the  citations  of 
Ecclesiasticus,  the  Book  of  Jubilees,  and  other  pre- 
Christian  literature,  carry  us  back  to  about  300  B.  C.78 

77  Thus  we  find  that  the  Zadokite  Fragments  cite  the  canon- 
ical books  226  times;    13  times  from  Genesis,  7  Ex.,  29  Lev,  20 
Num ,  23  Deut.  (92  Pentateuch) ;  3  Joshua,  3  Judges,  6  Samuel, 
2  Kings,  30  Is,  9  Jer.,  16  Ezek,  9  Hos.,  2  Amos,  1  Ob,  7  Mi, 
1  Na,  3  Zech.,  4  Mai.  (Minor  Prophets  27);    13  Ps,  1  Ru,  10 
Prov.,  3  Job,  1  Lam.,  1  Est,  4  Dan.,  2  Ezra,  1  Neh.,  3  Chron. 
(That  is,  all  the  O    T.  books  except  Ecclesiastes  and  the  Song 
of  Songs  )     Some  of  these  citations  agree  exactly  with  the  con- 
sonants of  our  textus  receptus,    some  differ  slightly,  some  con- 
siderably;   but  they  all   indicate  that  the  present  text  is  sub- 
stantially the  same  as  that  which  was  in  existence  when  the  book 
of  Zadok  was  written.     That  Philo  had  tne  text  of  our  Old 
Testament  before  him  will  be  manifest  to  anyone  who  reads  a 
page  or  two  of  Ryle's  Philo  and  Holy  Scripture,  which  gives 
Philo's  citations  from  the  canonical  books  of  the  Jews.    For  the 
New   Testament,    Toy's   work   on   New   Testament    Quotations, 
shows  plainly  the  same  thing.    As  for  Josephus,  he  himself  claims 
that  his  Antiquities  is  based  on  the  sacred  writings  of  the  Israel- 
ites and  the  writings  demonstrate  the  tiuth  of  his  statement. 

78  The  differences  between  the  Hebrew  Massontic  text  and  the 
Greek  Septuagint  are  often  grossly  exaggerated    The  vast  major- 
ity of  them  arise  merely  from  a  difference  of  pointing  of  the 
same  consonantal  text.     The  real  variants  arose  from  errors  of 
sight  such  as  those  between  r  and  df  k  and  b,  y  and  wf  or  from 
errors  of  sound  such  as  between  gutturals,  labials,  palatals,  sibi- 
lants, and  dentals,  or  from  different  interpretations  of  abbrevia- 



6.  For   the   Pentateuch,    the   present    Samaritan- 
Hebrew  text  (which  has  been  transmitted  for  2,300 
years  or  more,  by  copyists  adverse  to  Rabbinical  and 
Massoritic  influences)   agrees  substantially  with  the 
received  text  of  our  Hebrew  Bibles.    Most  of  the 
variants  are  the  same  in  character  as  those  which  we 
find  in  the  transmission  of  all  originals  and  especially 
in  the  transmission  of  our  Hebrew  text  itself.79    This 
carries  the  text  back  at  the  latest  to  about  400  B.  C. 

7.  The  Hebrew  Scriptures  contain  the  names  of  26 

tions  There  is  a  goodly  number  of  transpositions,  some  dittog- 
raphies,  many  additions  or  omissions,  sometimes  of  significant 
consonants,  but  almost  all  in  unimportant  words  and  phrases 
Most  of  the  additions  seem  to  have  been  for  elucidation  of  the 
original.  In  the  case  of  Jeremiah  we  have  m  the  Greek  a  recen- 
sion which  excludes  many  recurrent  phrases  It  may  be  com- 
pared with  the  Babylonian  and  Aramaic  recension  of  the  Behistun 
inscription  as  contrasted  with  the  Persian  and  Susian.  While 
substantially  the  same,  they  vary  in  many  particulars. — For  the 
Old  Testament  citations  and  allusions  of  Ben-Sira,  see  my  article 
on  "The  Hebrew  of  Ecclesiasticus"  in  the  Pres.  and  Ref.  Re- 
view for  1900 — For  the  Book  of  Jubilees,  see  the  collection  of 
variants  by  R  H.  Charles  in  the  Apocrypha  and  Pseudepigrapha 
of  the  Old  Testament,  II  5,  6.  Prof.  Charles  has  gathered  only 
25  variants,  8  of  single  consonants,  I  of  transposition  of  words, 
9  of  omission  of  a  word  and  1  of  a  phrase,  2  cases  of  change 
of  gender,  1  of  number,  and  3  inexplicable  corruptions.  The 
result  of  his  investigation  is  a  wonderful  corroboration  of  the 
substantial  correctness  of  our  present  Hebrew  text. 

79  See  Gesenius',  De  Pentateuchi  Samaritam  origine,  the  stand- 
ard work  on  this  subject;  and,  also,  the  able  criticism  of  the 
work  of  Gesenius  by  J.  Iverach  Munro,  entitled,  The  Samaritan 
Pentateuch  See  also  a  review  of  Petermann's  Pentateuchus 
Samaritanus  by  R.  D.  Wilson  in  Pres  and  Ref.  Review,  III,  199, 
and  J.  E  H  Thomson,  D  D.,  The  Samaritans:  their  Testimony 
to  the  Religion  of  Israel,  and  J.  A.  Montgomery,  The  Samaritans. 



or  more  foreign  kings  whose  names  have  been  found 
on  documents  contemporary  with  the  kings.  The 
names  of  most  of  these  kings  are  found  to  be  spelled 
on  their  own  monuments,  or  in  documents  from  the 
time  in  which  they  reigned  in  the  same  manner  that 
they  are  spelled  in  the  documents  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. The  changes  in  the  spelling  of  others  are  in 
accordance  with  the  laws  of  phonetic  change  as  those 
laws  were  in  operation  at  the  time  when  the  Hebrew 
documents  claim  to  have  been  written.  In  the  case 
of  two  or  three  names  only  are  there  letters,  or  spell- 
ings, that  cannot  as  yet  be  explained  with  certainty; 
but  even  in  these  few  cases  it  cannot  be  shown  that 
the  spelling  in  the  Hebrew  text  is  wrong.  Contrari- 
wise, the  names  of  many  of  the  kings  of  Judah  and 
Israel  are  found  on  the  Assyrian  contemporary  docu- 
ments with  the  same  spelling  as  that  which  we  find 
in  the  present  Hebrew  text. 

The  names  of  Chedorlaomer  and  his  confederates 
are  written  in  the  Hebrew  as  follows:  Amraphel 
tffinDK),  Chedorlaomer  ("iDJ^Ttt),  Arioch  (tJTnK), 
and  Tidal  tf>jnn).  The  first  name  is  undoubtedly 
meant  to  denote  Hammurabi,  king  of  Babylon,  and 
is  to  be  divided  into  'ammu,  rapi  and  Hi.  The  first 
syllable  is  usually  written  in  Babylonian  ha  but  there 
are  cases  where  it  is  written  'a.80  The  /  at  the  end 

80  See  notes  in  King's  Letters  and  Inscriptions  of  Hammurabi, 
LXVI  and  253. 



stands  for  ilu  "god."  81  This  word  ilu  is  found  at 
the  end  of  the  names  of  other  kings  of  the  same 
dynasty  as  Hammurabi,  such  as  Sumula-ilu,  Samsu- 
ilu-na,  and  also  of  persons  not  kings  as  $umman-la- 
ilu*2  The  omission  of  the  Aleph  from  ^  ('el)  is 
found  also  in  the  Hebrew  of  the  HK  ('ah)  of  Sen- 
nacherib and  Esarhaddon.  As  to  the  names  of  the 
other  kings,  no  one  can  deny  that  they  are  spelled  cor- 
rectly. For  Kudur  occurs  in  names  of  the  time  of 
Hammurabi83  and  Laomer  occurs  in  Ashurbanipal's 
list  of  the  gods  of  Elam.8*  The  Kudur-Lakhgumal 
of  Pinches  inscription85  is  certainly  the  same  as  the 

IXVI     In  British  Museum  Document  No.  33212,  ilu 
occurs  before  the  name. 
82  King:   Letters,  etc.,  Ill,  pp.  21,  215,  241. 
ss  King.  Id  I  LV. 

84  See  Streck.  Assurbawpal  II,  52     La-go-ma-ru  (Annals  VI. 

85  KB  II  205.    In  an  article  on  the  gods  of  Elam  by  M.  H.  de 
Genouillac  in  the  Receutl  de  Travaux,  xxvn,  94  f,  we  learn  that 
the   Elamite   way   of   spelling  the   name  was   La-ga-mar,     M 
Francois  Martin  in  his  Textes  Religieux  gives  the  spellings  as 
La-ga-wta-al  (for  which  he  cites  two  cases)  and  La-ga-mar  (for 
which  he  cites  two  cases).    Ashurbanipal  spells  the  name  Larga- 
ma-ru  (V.  R  6a,  33).    The  LXX  gives  it  as  Xo5oX\o7o/*6p,  hav- 
ing assimilated  the  first  r  to  the  following  /.    The  name  appears 
already  in  the  time  of  Kutur-Nahhunti  and  again  in  an  inscrip- 
tion  of  his   brother,    Shilhak-in-Shushinak      A   son    of    Kutur- 
Nahhunti  was  called  Shilhma-hamru-I,agamar  (in  three  different 
texts),  and  Shutruru  speaks  of  him  as  "the  great"  —  King  in  his 
History  of  Babylon,  p  113,  gives  2282  B  C  as  the  date  of  Kutur- 
Nahhunti   (whose  name  he  spells  Kutur-Nankhumdi)  and  about 
2080  B.  C  as  that  of  Hammurabi  (id   111).    See  also  Scheil  in 
the  Memoires  of  the  Delegation  en  Perse,  Tome   III,   Textes 
Slamites-Anzcmites,  p    49;    and  Deimel  in  the  Pantheon,  Baby- 

Nomina  Deorum,  etc.,  Romae  1914,  p.  16*0  f. 



Kudur-Laomer  of  Gen.  xiv.  The  changes  of  the  gut- 
turals and  palatals  and  of  I  and  r  are  common  ones 
in  the  transliterations  of  languages.  Thus  Babylonian 
/  equals  Persian  r,  Hebrew  /  equals  Egyptian  r,88 
Hebrew  JJ  (')  often  equals  Egyptian  and  Greek  g, 
and  Babylonian  h.87  In  Tidal  the  JJ  (')  is  regular  for  n 
(h),  as  m  the  first  letter  of  Omri.  In  Arioch  the 
consonants  are  exact  equivalents  of  the  like  word  in 
Sumerian.  No  one  can  doubt  therefore,  that  the 
Hebrew  text  of  the  proper  names  may  have  been 
written  in  the  time  of  Hammurabi;  and  that,  when- 
ever it  was  written,  it  has  been  handed  down  correctly 
to  our  times.  The  very  disputes  about  these  names 
are  the  very  strongest  corroborations  of  the  general 
belief  of  all  critics  in  the  accurate  transmission  of 
the  Hebrew  text.  In  the  twenty  consonants  of  these 
four  names  we  have,  therefore,  twenty  witnesses  to 
the  correctness  of  the  Hebrew  textus  receptus. 

The  five  kings  of  Egypt  are:  Shishak  (ptfff),  So 
(KID),  Tirhakah  (npmfi),  Necho  (IM),  and  Hophra 
(jnan),  reigning  at  intervals  from  1000  to  600  B.  C. 
There  are  here  18  consonants  in  the  Hebrew  text 
and  they  represent  18  consonants  in  the  cartouches  of 
the  kings  named.  Here  we  have  one  of  the  most  re- 

86  In  the  case  of  Laomer  the  changes  of  /  and  r  are  found  on 
the  documents  of  Elam,  Babylon,  and  Assyria. 

87  Thus  TO  =  Gaza  in  Greek  and  Gadatu  in  Egyptian.    See 
Breasted:    Egypt  II.  179,  Schrader  in  Die  Keilmschriftm  und 
das  Alte  Testament,  1073,  161.27,  2563,  and  Knudtzon's  Die  El~ 
AmarnoTafeln,  289.17,  33,  40  (but  also,  Azzoti  in1  296.32). 



markable  instances  of  exact  transmission  of  proper 
names  on  record.  For  first,  the  guttural  consonants, 
X,  n,  n,  and  j?,  the  palatals  and  r  all  represent  the 
same  letters  in  the  original.  The  only  changes  from 
the  original  are  the  assimilation  of  the  n  in  Sheshank, 
the  adding  of  the  vowel  letter  H  at  the  end  of  Tirha- 
kah,  the  changing  of  sh  to  s  and  of  b  to  w  in  So,  and 
the  change  of  b  to  p  in  Hophra, — all  changes  in  har- 
mony with  the  general  laws  of  variations  in  sounds 
in  the  passing  from  one  language  to  another.87* 

87*  These  statements  about  the  names  of  the  kings  of  Egypt 
mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  are  based  especially  upon  a 
study  of  the  comparative  values  of  the  consonantal  signs  as  ex- 
hibited in  the  inscriptions  of  Thothmes  III  on  the  gates  of  his 
temple  at  Thebes  (Karnak).  There  exist  still  three  lists  of  the 
cities  of  Palestine  and  Syria  which  Thothmes  conquered.  They 
have  been  edited  and  compared  with  the  original  Hebrew  names, 
which  they  purport  to  render,  by  Prof.  W.  Max  Muller  of  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania  in  his  work  entitled  Die  Palastinal- 
iste  Thutmosis  IIL  From  these  lists  we  gather  the  Egyptian 
way  of  expressing  the  Hebrew  h,  q  (k),  n,  and  r.  Budge  in  his 
First  Steps  in  Egyptian  gives  us  on  pages  9-11  the  signs  for  taf 
ka,  sha(s),  ab,  raf.  Using  the  signs  in  the  cartouches  of  the 
kings  and  comparing  them  with  the  letters  used  in  our  Hebrew 
Bible  for  spelling  the  same  names  we  find  that  they  are  exactly 
equivalent  except  that  the  Hebrews  according  to  their  custom 
assimilate  the  n  in  Shishak,  add  the  vowel  letter  h  at  the  end  of 
Torhakah,  change  the  labials  in  Hophra  and  So  and  drop  the  ka 
in  So  Taking  up  these  variations  according  to  the  apparent  dif- 
ficulty of  explanation,  we  find  that  ka  occurs  in  fifteen  of  the 
names  of  kings  of  Ethiopia  (Petrie,  History  of  Egypt  III.  280- 
311).  According  to  Brugsch,  this  ka  is  in  Ethiopic  the  post-fixed 
article.  If  so,  it  would  not  be  used  in  proper  names  in  either 
Assyrian  or  Hebrew.  The  w  in  Swf  is  changed  from  6  as  in 
Bath-Shu'a  for  Bath-Sheba.  Sargon  in  Khorsabad  inscription  I. 



The  kings  of  Assyria  are  Tiglath-pileser 
Shalmaneser    (intttfi^),     Sargon 
Sennacherib    (i^inffi),    and    Esarhaddon 
and  the  kings  of  Babylon  Merodachbaladan 

Nebuchadrezzar  (TOTBiaa),  Evil-Merodach 
W)  and  Belshazzar  (nxt^).  These  words 
contain  63  letters  of  which  59  are  consonants.  Com- 
paring these  consonants  with  those  of  the  originals 
we  find  that  the  only  changes  in  the  Hebrew  text 
contrary  to  general  rules  consist  in  the  spelling  Shal- 
maneser instead  of  Salmanezer  and  the  assimilation  or 
dropping  of  r  in  the  sha(r)  of  Belshazzar.88  As  to  the 
rendering  of  the  Assyrian  sh  by  sh  it  is  to  be  noted 

25,  26  calls  him  SibT'  .-c.  The  '  (  H)  at  the  end  in  Hebrew  is 
the  proper  vowel  letter  for  the  Egyptian  vowel  in  ba. 

In  Hophra  we  have  a  p  where  -die  Egyptian  has  b.  But  the 
Greek  of  Herodotus  has  p  and  Manetho  has  ph.  It  is  noteworthy 
that  the  Hebrew  alone  renders  correctly  the  gutturals  ft  and  y» 
While  the  Hebrew  text  correctly  keeps  the  n  m  the  beginning  the 
Targum  has  changed  it  to  n  the  article  and  translated  the  word 
as  the  unfortunate;  the  Syriac  agrees  with  the  Targum  and 
renders  by  "the  lame."  The  Hebrew  kah  at  the  end  of  Tishakah 
is  certainly  better  than  the  Babylonian  ku,  the  Hebrews  having  read 
the  sign  as  ka  and  heightened  the  #  to  a  at  the  end  of  the  word 
and  then  written  the  vowel  letter  as  usual. 

88  For  the  latter  compare  the  confusion  of  ?»»  and  ia»  by 
the  Septuagmt  translators  and  the  falling  out  or  assimilation  of 
r  in  the  examples  given  in  Lidzbarski's  Epigraphik,  p.  393  Com- 
pare also,  the  assimilation  of  the  r  to  I  in  the  Greek  Chodollogo- 
mar;  and  also,  the  dropping  of  the  r  in  the  Assyrian  translitera- 
tions of  Egyptian  names  given  in  Assurbampal's  Annals  I,  90- 
109,  e.  g,  Mimpi  for  Mn-nfr,  Pisaptu  for  Pr-spd,  Punubu  for 
Pr-ub;  and  the  not  infrequent  change  of  r  to  /,  or  /  to  r,  in  the 
LXX,  or  the  change  of  Egyptian  b  to  p. 



that  this  is  the  way  in  which  this  particular  root 
is  always  written  in  both  the  Aramaic  and  Canaanitish 
dialects.89  The  writing  in  Daniel  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
for  Nebuchadrezzar,  involving  the  change  of  r  to  n, 
may  be  explained  either  by  assuming  that  the  former 
is  the  Aramaic  form  of  the  latter,  or  that  the  r  is 
changed  to  n  as  in  the  example  given  in  Lidbarski.90 

The  four  names  of  Achsemenid  kings  found  in 
the  Scriptures  are  Cyrus  (BH3),  Darius  (tSWr)9 
Ahasuerus  (BTlWrW),  and  Artaxerxes  (KfiDBWVW), 
of  which  the  last  part  is  written  also  f\w  and  KfiftP. 
The  Aleph  in  Xerxes  is  prosthetic  as  in  the  word 
satrap  (JBYIHWttO  and  the  final  Aleph  as  found  in  cer- 

89  This    appears    from    numerous    examples    in    Lidzbarski's 
Epigraphik,  pp.  376,  377,  for  Phenician,  Punic,  Hebrew,  Naba- 
tean,  Palmyrene,  and  Egypto-Aramaic.    For  the  eser  the  Assy- 
nan  has  asandu.    Assyrian  proper  names  were  frequently  short- 
ened even  to  only  one  part  out  of  three  or  more.    See  Tallquist: 
Neubabylonisches    Namenbuch    xiv-xxxni      Compare,    also,    the 
Shalman  of  Hos.  x    14  and  the  Jareb  of  Hos   v   13,  x   6,  and 
the  Nadinu  of  the  Babylonian   Chronicle   (K    B    II    274)    for 
Nabu-nadin-zir.     (Winckler:   History  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria, 
p.  110.)     If  the  full   form  of  the  name  was  Shalman-asandu- 
Asur,  the  forms  used  in  the  Assyrian  documents  and  in  the  Hebrew 
text  would  both  be  accounted  for. 

90  Eptgraphik,  pp.  329,  393.    See  also  my  Studies  on  the  Book 
of  Daniel,  p    167,  note      Since  in  Babylonia  both  kuduru  and 
kidinu  mean  servant,  it  is  possible  that  the  latter  was  used  by 
Jeremiah  and  Daniel  to  show  that  they  interpreted  kuduru  as 
meaning  servant  rather  than  boundary.    Again,  both  names  might 
be  shorter  forms  of  Nabu-kudur-kidmi-usur  O  Nebo,  protect  the 
boundary  of  the  servant    Or,  the  n  may  be  the  Hebrew  and  old 
Aramaic  (Nerab)  form  of  the  Imperative  with  the  r  assimilated. 
Compare  Note  88. 



tain  spellings  of  the  name  Artaxerxes  is  otiant. 
The  Wau  in  Xerxes  is  a  contraction  of  yama.  In  the 
case  of  Artaxerxes  the  dental  and  sibilant  are  trans- 
posed in  accordance  with  general  Semitic  laws  of 
dental  and  sibilants.  In  the  Sachau  Papyri  from  the 
fifth  century  B.  C.  the  names  are  written 

rprr  (or  rwYi,  nwYT),  r-wn,  and 

In  Babylonian  the  Wau  in  Darius  is  commonly  writ- 
ten m,  Xerxes  has  often  a  prosthetic  vowel,  and 
Artaxerxes  is  written  in  the  Babylonian  recension  of 
the  original  inscription  Artaksatsu  (or  with  an  h  in- 
stead of  &).91  Thus  we  see  that  every  one  of  the  22 
consonants  composing  the  names  of  the  kings  of 
Persia  mentioned  in  the  Bible  has  been  transmitted 
correctly  to  us  over  a  space  23  or  24  hundred  years. 
It  may  be  added  that  in  no  other  non-Persian  docu- 
ment are  they  so  accurately  transliterated.914 

81  See  Weissbach's  Keitinschiften  der  Achaemeniden,  and 
Strassmaier's  Inschiften  von  Danus  and  numerous  tablets  in  CT 
and  VASD 

9:1  *  Critics  who  hold  that  Esther  and  Ezra  were  not  composed  till 
after  300  B  C  and  that  both  authors  gained  largely  from  Greek 
sources  their  information  about  the  times  which  they  describe  will 
have  a  hard  time  explaining  the  way  in  which  Xerxes  is  spelled  in 
Ezra  iv  6,  and  in  the  book  of  Esther  throughout  According  to  all 
known  cases  of  transliteration,  BnjtPTiK  cannot  possibly  be  a  trans- 
literation of  Xerxes.  The  X  of  the  Greek  is  commonly  trans- 
literated in  Hebrew,  Aramaic  and  Synac  by  ks  (w)  and  infre- 
quently by  ks  (Dp)  ;  h  (n)  and  sh  (ff)  being  never  used  Thus 
Xerx  (for  es  is  the  Greek  ending)  could  never  become  'jjfwr£ 
[In  Dalman's  Aramaisch-Neuhebratsches  Wortesbuch  there  are 
nouns  with  DD  and  with  DDK  and  with  Dp  and  with  Dp«  corre- 
sponding to  the  Greek  X  or  I,  but  not  one  with  Ofy  DH»j  Vft  or  VHK* 



Other  kings  of  foreign  countries  mentioned  in  the 
Bible  and  also  on  contemporary  documents  outside 
the  Bible  are  Hazael  (tottim),  and  Rezin  (pxn),  of 
Damascus,  Hiram  (DVn),  and  Ethbaal  (^JJsnK)  of 

The  same  is  true  of  the  Syraic  words  in  Brockelmann's  Lexicon 
Syriacum.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  writers  of  these  lived  in 
the  fifth  century  B.  C  in  the  Persian  court,  they  could  not  have 
transliterated  better  than  they  have  done.  For  Xerxes  in  Persian 
is  ksayarsa,  the  exact  equivalent  of  tPWH,  to  which  the  Hebrew 
adds  a  prosthetic  Aleph,  as  is  done  in  the  case  of  the  Aramaic 
fipBTW,  satrap  (Daniel  vi.  4)  and  ptwrw  camel  (?)  (Esther 
viii,  10,  14)  and  most  commonly  in  Babylonian  and  also  in  the 
Syriac  BHWW  (Peshitto  of  Esther  1.1),  and  Bar  Hebraeus: 
Chronicon  Syriacum  p  31  (Pans  edition  of  1890,  sold  by  Mais- 
sonneuve).  If  we  accept  the  Massontic  vowel  pointing  in  Dan. 
ix.  1  a  Xerxes  or  Ahasuerus  is  referred  to  there  also  If,  how- 
ever, we  point  as  'Ohsarus,  we  would  have  the  Hebrew  of  the 
king  of  Media  whom  the  Greeks  called  Cyaxares,  and  the  Per- 
sians uuakstra.  The  name  occurs  in  Persian  only  twice  and  both 
times  in  the  genitive  uuakstrahya  (Behistun  §§  24,  33)] 

Artaxerxes,  also,  is  in  the  Bible  as  exact  a  transliteration  of  the 
Persian  way  of  writing  the  name,  as  is  possible.  The  first  part 
of  the  name  is  written  in  the  Persian  inscription  arda  once 
(vase  a),  and  arta  nine  times.  The  Elamitic  follows  the  Persian 
even  in  the  change  of  d  and  t;  but  Hebrew,  Aramaic,  Babylonian 
and  Greek  always  write  t.  The  Persian  k  is  always  rendered 
by  k  in  Elamitic  and  Greek  (the  first  part  of  ks);  in  Babylonian 
it  is  represented  by  a  k  except  in  vase  a  where  we  have  '&;  in- 
Hebrew  and  Aramaic  we  always  have  fc.  The  letter  following  k 
is  in  Persian  on  vase  a  £  but  everywhere  else  s;  in  Elamitic, 
Babylonian,  Egypto  and  biblical  Aramaic  and  Hebrew,  always 
s;  in  Greek  the  $  part  of  £  The  last  syllable  is  in  Persian 
s£d  or  the  sign  denoted  by  an  r  with  an  s  over  it  and  a  following 
it  Elamitic  denotes  this  syllable  by  $sat  Babylonian  by  ssu  (vases 
a,  b,  c)  or  tsu ;  Egypto- Aramaic  by  PQ,  biblical  Aramaic  by  KftBf 
(Ezra  iv.  7  bis,  8,  11,  23,  vi.  14)  and  biblical  Hebrew  by  KflO 
(Ezra  vii  1,  7,  11,  12,  21;  viii.  1;  Neh.  ii.  1;  xhi,  6),  the  s 
and  t  being  transposed  in  accordance  with  the  general  rule  that 



Tyre,  JJj^D  o£  Moab,  and  Hadadezer  (ITJPttn). 
These  names  contain  at  least  24  consonants,  and  every 
one  of  them  has  the  proper  writing  in  our  Hebrew 
Bibles.  In  fact,  Hadad  (Tin),  and  Ethbaal  (fyafiK) 
are  spelled  more  correctly  in  the  Hebrew  text  than 
they  are  in  the  Assyrian  records.92 

Again,  there  are  at  least  six  kings  of  Israel  and 
four  of  Judah  whose  names  are  found  in  the  Assyrian, 
records,  to  wit:  Omri  (*1DJJ),  Ahab  (2Kn«),  Jehu 
(KW),  Menahem  (DIUD),  Pekah  (npB),  Hoshea 
(JWW),  Azariah  OmtJJ),  Ahaz  (ffW),  Hezekiah 
Cin*ptn),and  Manasseh  (nWfi).  By  comparing  the 
Assyrian  renditions  of  the  letters  it  will  be  found 
that  the  whole  40  are  written  in  our  Hebrew  Bibles 
in  a  manner  corresponding  to  the  proper  translitera- 
tion of  the  Assyrian  texts. 

Thus  we  find  that  in  143  cases  of  transliteration 

where  a  dental  comes  before  a  sibilant  the  two  consonants  change 
places.  Ezra  iv  7  gives  the  whole  syllable  as  sta'  The  Greek 
gives  the  syllable  as  &J$,  transposing  the  letters  sk  into  ks  and 
adding  the  Greek  ending  es;  but  the  r  of  the  syllable  Xer  has  no 
equivalent  in  Persian,  or  any  other  contemporaneous  language. 
That  yama  should  contract  to  wait  (or  6)  seems  clear  when  we 
remember  that  yama  is  equivalent  to  yawa  and  that  the  m  of  Baby- 
lonian may  change  to  w  in  West  Semitic,  as  m  Saos  for  Shamash 
in  the  name  of  the  king  Shamash-sum-ukin  as  given  in  Ptolemy's 
Canon.  It  appears  from  the  above  evidence  that  the  Bible,  espe- 
cially in  the  whole  writing  of  Ezra  iv.  7,  presents  the  best  trans- 
literation possible  of  the  original  Persian  name  as  spelled  in  the 
native  inscription  of  the  monarch  himself. 

92  For  a  detailed  discussion  of  the  evidence  see  KA.T  and 
barski's  Epigfaphik. 

6  [81] 


from  Egyptian,  Assyrian,  Babylonian  and  Moabite 
into  Hebrew  and  in  40  cases  of  the  opposite,  or  184 
in  all,  the  evidence  shows  that  for  2300  to  3900 
years  the  text  of  the  proper  names  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible  has  been  transmitted  with  the  most  minute  ac- 
curacy. That  the  original  scribes  should  have  writ- 
ten them  with  such  close  conformity  to  correct  philo- 
logical principles  is  a  wonderful  proof  of  their  thor- 
ough care  and  scholarship;  further,  that  the  Hebrew 
text  should  have  been  transmitted  by  copyists  through 
so  many  centuries  is  a  phenomenon  unequalled  in  the 
history  of  literature. 

For  neither  the  assailants  nor  the  defenders  of  the 
biblical  text  should  assume  for  one  moment  that 
either  this  accurate  rendition  or  this  correct  trans- 
mission of  proper  names  is  an  easy  or  usual  thing. 
And  as  some  of  my  readers  may  not  have  experience 
in  investigating  such  matters,  attention  may  be  called 
to  the  names  of  the  kings  of  Egypt  as  given  in 
Manetho  and  on  the  Egyptian  monuments.  Manetho 
was  a  high  priest  of  the  idol-temples  in  Egypt  in  the 
time  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  i.  e ,  about  280  B.  C. 
He  wrote  a  work  on  the  dynasties  of  Egyptian  kings, 
of  which  fragments  have  been  preserved  in  the  works 
of  Josephus,  Eusebius,  and  others  Of  the  kings  of 
the  31  dynasties,  he  gives  140  names  from  22 
dynasties.  Of  these,  49  appear  on  the  monuments  in 
a  form  in  which  every  consonant  of  Manetho's  spell- 
ing may  possibly  be  recognized,  and  28  more  may  be 



recognized  in  part.  The  other  63  are  unrecognizable 
in  any  single  syllable.  If  it  be  true  that  Manetho 
himself  copied  these  lists  from  the  original  records — 
and  the  fact  that  he  is  substantially  correct  in  49 
cases  corroborates  the  supposition  that  he  did, — the 
hundreds  of  variations  and  corruptions  in  the  fifty  or 
more  unrecognizable  names  must  be  due  either  to  his 
fault  in  copying  or  to  the  mistakes  of  the  transmitters 
of  his  text.95  But,  perhaps,  the  most  striking  example 
of  the  difficulty  of  transmitting  accurately  the  proper 
names  of  kings,  as  well  as  the  precariousness  of  using 
these  lists  as  evidence  against  the  Scriptures,  is  to  be 
found  in  the  lists  of  kings  given  by  the  astronomer 
Ptolemy  in  his  Canon.  Of  the  twenty-two  kings  that 
reigned  over  Babylon  from  Nabonassar  to  Nabunaid 
inclusive,  Ptolemy  mentions  but  eighteen;  and  of  the 
eighteen  kings  from  Cyrus  to  Darius  Codomannus, 
the  names  of  eight  are  omitted. 

This  deficiency  in  the  Ptolemaic  Canon  will  be  the 
more  apparent  when  we  observe  that  between  the 
death  of  Nergal-shar-usur  in  556  B.  C.  and  the  ac- 
cession of  Darius  II  in  424  B.  C,  i.  e.,  in  132  years, 
the  Canon  gives  the  names  and  length  of  reigns  of 
only  six  kings  of  Babylon,  whereas  the  classics  and 

93  Of  the  27  kings  of  Egypt  named  by  Josephus,  only  seven 
are  spelled  the  same  as  in  Manetho  Of  the  41  kings  of  Assyria 
in  the  lists  of  Afncanus,  only  one  name  is  recognizable  and  it 
is  misspelled.  In  Ptolemy's  list  of  18  kings  of  Babylon,  only 
one  is  spelled  exactly  right.  See  my  article  on  Darius  the  Mede 
in  PTR  for  1922. 



monuments  give  the  names,  and  in  most  cases,  the 
approximate  lengths  of  the  reigns  of  nine  others. 

Now,  Ptolemy  and  those  who  copied  his  Canon 
have  been  very  careful  in  copying  the  notation  of  the 
number  of  years.  It  is  different,  however,  when  we 
look  at  the  proper  names.  Thus,  of  the  eighteen 
names  of  the  kings  of  Babylon  from  Nabonassar  to 
Nabunaid,  only  the  first  and  last,  and  that  of  Esar- 
haddon  are  written  with  approximate  correctness. 
That  their  difference  may  be  patent  to  the  eye  of  our 
readers,  I  shall  give  the  names  in  interlinear  trans- 
literation, the  first  line  as  given  in  the  Canon,  the 
second  as  we  find  the  name  on  the  Babylonian  monu- 
ments : 

1  Nabonassarou  2  Nadiou  3  Chinzirou  kai  Porou 

1  Nabunasir  2  Nabu-nadin-zir  3  Ukinzir  and  Pulu 

4  lougaiou  5  Mardokempadou  6  Arkianou 

4  Ululai  5  Marduk-aplu-iddin  6  Shar-ukiu 

7  Belibou  8  Apronadiou  9  Rigebelou 

7  Belibni  8  Ashur-nadin-shum  9  Nergal-ushezib 

10  Mesessimordakou  11  Assaradinou  12  Saosdoucheou 

10  Mushezib-Marduk  11  Ashur-ahi-iddin  12  Shamash-shum-ukin 

13  Xuniladanou  14  Nabokolassarou  15  Nabokolassarou 

13  Kandalanu  14  Nabu-aplu-tisur  IS  Nabu-kudur-usur 

16  Ilouarodamou  17  Ninkassolassarou  18  Nabonadiou 

16  Amel-Marduk  17  Nergal-shar-usur  18  Nabu-na'id 

Another  example  of  the  difficulty  of  transmitting 
proper  names  is  to  be  found  in  the  life  of  Alexander 
by  the  Pseudo-Callisthenes.  Concerning  this  work 
the  late  President  Woolsey  of  Yale  College  has  truly 
said,  that  in  the  Greek  manuscripts  and  in  the  ver- 
sions "proper  names  assume  different  forms  at  will," 



and  there  is  "an  amazing  difference  in  the  proper 
names."  "A  daughter-in-law  of  Queen  Candace  is 
called  Harpussa  by  B  and  C,  Matersa  by  A,  and 
Margie  by  V."  "In  the  list  o£  combatants  in  the 
games  the  Syriac  has  nine  names  like  the  Greek  and 
Latin  authorities,  but  they  are  all  so  much  altered 
that  two  or  three  only  have  any  resemblance.9* 

Thus  we  see  not  merely  analogical  evidence  but  the 
direct  evidence  of  the  documents  forces  us  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  spelling  of  the  proper  names  of  the 
kings  as  given  in  the  Old  Testament  must  go  back  to 
original  sources;  and  if  the  original  sources  were  in 
the  hands  of  the  composers  of  the  documents,  the 
probability  is  that  since  the  composers  are  correct  in 
the  spelling  of  the  names  of  the  kings  they  are  cor- 
rect also  in  the  sayings  and  deeds  which  they  record 
concerning  these  kings.  And  this  we  find  in  general 
to  be  true  where  the  Hebrew  documents  and  the 
monuments  both  record  the  great  deeds  of  the  kings. 
Thus  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  mention  the  expedition 
of  Shishak  against  Judah,  and  the  Egyptian  records 
at  Thebes  record  the  conquest  of  Judah  by  the  same 
king.  The  Assyrian  monuments  speak  of  the  wars 
of  Tiglath-Pileser,  Shalmaneser,  Sargon,  and  Sen- 

fl*  See  for  the  evidence  in  full  the  article  of  President  Woolsey 
entitled:  Notice  of  a  Life  of  Alexander  the  Great  translated 
from  the  Synac  by  Rev.  Dr.  Justin  Perkins,  New  Haven,  1854, 
in  Reprint  from  the  Journal  of  the  American  Oriental  Society, 
Vol.  IV,  359-440. 



nacherib;  the  Hebrew  documents  record  the  same 
events  generally  in  the  same  order  and  with  the  like 
results.  Mesha  says  that  he  asserted  his  independ- 
ence of  Ahab;  the  Scriptures  say  that  he  rebelled 
against  Israel.  From  the  mouths  of  many  witnesses 
— for  in  this  case  every  consonant  gives  out  a  voice 
of  testimony — the  Hebrew  documents  are  corrobo- 
rated. The  great  kings  come  up  from  the  south  and 
the  greater  kings  come  down  from  the  north,  and  the 
little  kings  of  Tyre  and  Damascus  and  Moab  and 
Israel  and  Judah  meet  them  in  the  slash  and  clash  of 
battle  and  the  kings  record  their  victories  on  the  pyla 
of  Thebes,  on  the  cliffs  of  Behistun,  on  the  stones  of 
Moab,  on  the  high  built  walls  of  their  palaces  and 
tombs;  and  the  great  kings  and  the  small  go  alike 
the  inevitable  way  of  all  flesh.  But  they  did  not  live 
in  vain.  For  their  deeds  and  their  very  names  speak 
out  to-day  in  confirmation  of  the  history  of  that 
little,  oft  conquered,  nation  whose  God  was  Jehovah 
and  whose  oracles  were  the  oracles  of  God. 

8.  The  names  of  these  kings — about  forty  in  all — 
are  the  names  of  men  who  lived  from  about  2000  to 
about  400  B.  C.,  and  yet  they  each  and  all  appear  in 
proper  chronological  order  both  with  reference  to  the 
kings  of  the  same  country  and  with  respect  to  the 
kings  of  other  countries  contemporary  with  them 
No  stronger  evidence  for  the  substantial  accuracy  of 
the  Old  Testament  records  could  possibly  be  imagined 
than  this  collection  of  names  of  kings.  It  means  that 



out  of  56  kings  of  Egypt  from  Shishak  to  Darius  II, 
and  out  of  the  numerous  kings  of  Assyria,  Babylon, 
Persia,  Tyre,  Damascus,  Moab,  Israel,  and  Judah, 
that  ruled  from  2000  to  400  B.  C.,  the  writers  of  the 
Old  Testament  have  put  the  names  of  the  40  or 
more  that  are  mentioned  in  records  of  two  or  more 
of  the  nations,  in  their  proper  absolute  and  relative 
order  of  time  and  in  their  proper  place.  Any  expert 
mathematician  will  tell  you,  that  to  do  such  a  thing 
is  practically  impossible  without  a  knowledge  of  the 
facts  such  as  could  be  drawn  alone  from  contempo- 
rary and  reliable  records.  When  we  consider  that 
there  are  nine  distinct  lines  of  kings  in  the  countries 
mentioned,  and  that  there  are  several  hundred  kings 
in  all,  and  that  the  length  of  the  reigns  of  the  kings 
could  be  determined  only  from  the  most  accurate  rec- 
ords, the  chance  of  anyone  who  did  not  have  access 
to  reliable  sources  to  get  a  record  as  exact  as  that 
preserved  for  us  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  would  be 
so  small  that  no  mathematician  on  earth  could  calcu- 
late it.94a 
9.  The  proper  names  and  laws  and  customs  of  the 

94alf  there  were  300  names  of  kings,  each  reigning  20  years, 
and  40  to  be  taken  by  chance,  then,  according  to  the  algebraic 
rule  that  n  (vr—1)  (n—2) , ,  (V— r+i;  equals  the  number  of  per- 
mutations, there  would  be  one  chance  in  about  75  x  1,000,000  to  the 
16th  power  of  getting  the  names  in  the  correct  order.  Even  this 
chance  would  be  made  more  impossible  from  the  fact  that  the 
kings  did  not  all  reign  an  equal  and  synchronous  period,  but  for 
periods  of  from  one  month  to  66  years  See  Wells'  Higher  Al- 
gebra, page  362. 



time  of  Abraham  are  such  as  are  met  with  in  the 
extra-biblical  records  from  the  time  of  Hammurabi, 
of  whom  Abraham,  according  to  Gen.  xiv  was  a 
contemporary. 95 

10.  The  proper  names  and  customs  of  the  story  of 
Joseph  harmonize  with  the  time  when  Joseph  is  said 
to  have  been  in  Egypt.88 

11.  The  proper  names  of  the  Samaria  ostraka  and 
the  names  and  events  recorded  on  the  Moabite  stone 
agree  with  the  biblical  records  of  the  time  of  Ahab.97 

12.  Moreover,   the   kinds   of   foreign   words   em- 
bedded in  the  different  documents  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment argue  strongly  for  the  genuineness  and  for  the 
accurate  transmission  of  this  original  text. 

In  order  that  the  force  of  this  kind  of  evidence  may 
be  fully  appreciated,  let  me  here  say  that  the  time  at 
which  any  document  of  length,  and  often  even  of 
small  compass,  was  written  can  generally  be  deter- 
mined by  the  character  of  its  vocabulary,  and  espe- 
cially by  the  foreign  words  which  are  embedded  in  it. 
Take,  for  example,  the  various  Aramaic  documents. 
The  inscriptions  from  Northern  Syria  having  been 
written  in  Assyrian  times  bear  evident  marks  of  As- 
syrian, Phoenician,  and  even  Hebrew  words.  The 
Egyptian  papyri  from  Persian  times  have  numerous 

95  See  my  article  in  the  Bible  Student  for  1904.  In  reading 
the  article  please  bear  in  mind  that  the  proof  was  never  revised 
by  the  author 

"See  Pinches-   The  Old  Testament,  etc.,  pp  249-267. 

97  See  I/yon  in  Harvard  Review  for  1911,  p.  136. 


words  of  Egyptian,  Babylonian,  and  Persian  origin, 
as  have  also  the  Aramaic  parts  of  Ezra  and  Daniel. 
The  Nabatean  Aramaic  having  been  written  probably 
by  Arabs  is  strongly  marked,  especially  in  its  proper 
names,  by  Arab  words.  The  Palmyrene,  Syriac,  and 
Rabbinical  Aramaic,  from  the  time  of  the  Grseco- 
Roman  domination,  have  hundreds  of  terms  intro- 
duced from  Greek  and  Latin.  Bar  Hebraeus  and  other 
writings  after  the  Mohammedan  conquest  have  numer- 
ous Arabic  expressions,  and  the  modern  Syriac  of 
Ouroumiah  has  many  words  of  Persian,  Kurdish,  and 
Turkish  origin. 

Now,  if  the  Biblical  history  be  true,  we  shall  expect 
to  find  Babylonian  words  in  the  early  chapters  of 
Genesis  and  Egyptian  in  the  later;  and  so  on  down, 
an  ever-changing  influx  of  new  words  from  the  lan- 
guages of  the  ever-changing  dominating  powers. 
And,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  this  is  exactly  what  we  find. 
Thus,  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis  contain  proper  and 
common  names  of  Sumerian  or  Babylonian  origin,93 
and  the  Pentateuch  has  many  Egyptian  words."  In 
the  time  of  Solomon,  whose  mother  had  been  the  wife 
of  Uriah  the  Hittite  and  whose  commerce  included 
products  from  all  countries,  and  whose  empire  ex- 
tended from  the  Euphrates  to  the  borders  of  Egypt, 

»8E.g.,  Adam,   Abel,   Abraham,  Arioch;    and  »,  DWi,  ma 
(=  Sumerian  ba-ru  (?)),  *w,  fi»  (in  sense  of  "form"). 

89  E  g.  Ramases,  Pithom,  On,  Potiphar,  Asenath, 
mr,  epa. 



we  find  in  the  narrative,  words  of  Hittite,  Indian  and 
Assyrian  origin.100  In  the  documents  from  the 
eighth  to  the  sixth  century  we  find  predominantly 
foreign  words  of  Syrian,  Assyrian  and  Babylonian 
character.101  And  in  the  records  from  the  sixth  cen- 
tury to  the  end  we  find  Babylonian,  Persian,  and  a 
few  Greek  words.102 

13.  The  Old  Testament  documents  claim  that  rec- 
ords were  written  by  Moses,108  by  Joshua,10*  by 
Deborah,105  by  a  young  man  of  Succoth,106  by 
Samuel,107  by  David,108  and  either  by,  or  in  the  days 

100  Thus,    ttffifi    and    DTifi   have    their    nearest    analogies    in 
Armenian,  the  closest  of  the  Indo-Europeans  to  the  ancient  Hit- 
tites  (see  Meyer  in  Encyclopedia  Bnttanica,  art   "Persia").    The 
names  for  apes  and  elephants    (1  Kings  xi    22)   are  of  Indian 
origin  in   =  iba  (Burnouf  Sanskrit  Diet,  p   89),    'flp  =  Kapi, 
(id.  p.  140).     And   h^  and  Mns>  po   and   fe»n  came  from  the 
Assyro-Babyloman   (or   from  the  Sumenan  through  the  Baby- 

101  E.g   Hazael,  Benhadad,  Tiglath-Pileser,  Merodach-Baladan, 
Bel,  Nebo,  Tartan,  Rabshakeh 

102  E.g    Zerubbabbel,  Sheshbazzar,  Sanballat,  and  many  names 
of  officers,  offices,  and  things  are  Babylonian,  and  the  names  of 
musical  instruments  in  the  Aramaic  of  Daniel  are  Greek      (See 
my  article  in  Biblical  and  Theological  Studies  by  the  Faculty  of 
Princeton    Theological    Seminary,    p.    261     (1912)  )      On    the 
Persian  words,  see  Tisdale,  "The  Book  of  Daniel;    Some  Lin- 
guistic Evidence  Regarding  Its  Date" 

108  Thus,  JE  in  Ex  xvu.  14,  xxxn.  82,  xxiv.  12,  xxxiv  17; 
p  m  Deut  x.  4,  iv.  13,  v.  19,  x.  2,  xxviii.  61,  xxxi.  9,  22;  P 
in  Num  xxxm.  2,  Ex  xxxix  30. 

104  Josh   vm   32,  xvni.  4,  xxiv  26 

"5Judg  v  14. 

10«Judg  vih   14. 

IOT  i  Sam.  x.  25. 

1082  Sam.  XL  14,  15. 



of,  all  the  kings  of  Israel  and  Judah  from  Solomon 
to  Zedekiah.  For  thousands  of  years  before  the  time 
of  Moses,  the  Egyptians  on  the  southward  of 
Palestine  and  the  Babylonians  on  the  east  had  been 
writing  documents  similar  in  form  and  content  to 
those  found  in  the  Pentateuch.  For  thousands  of 
years  before  Moses,  the  Babylonians  had  been  mak- 
ing expeditions  and  carrying  their  culture  to  the 
coasts  of  the  Mediterranean  For  hundreds  of  years 
before  his  time,  kings  of  Egypt  had  been  raiding 
Palestine,  and  her  merchants  and  travelers  had  been 
frequenting  her  ports  and  inland  cities  and  leaving 
the  records  of  their  transactions  in  their  tales  and 
autobiographies.  The  Tel-el-Amarna  letters,  written 
to  the  kings  of  Egypt  from  every  part  of  Palestine 
and  Syria,  show  that  writing  in  cuneiform  was  prac- 
tised everywhere  in  these  countries  200  years  before 
the  time  of  Moses.109  And  the  tablets  from  Taanach, 
Gezer,  and  elsewhere  show  that  such  writings  were 

109  That  the  Hebrew  of  the  text  may  have  been  written  as  early 
as  the  time  of  Exodus  is  proven,  (1)  by  the  Hebrew  words 
embedded  in  the  Tel-el-Amarna  letters;  (2)  by  the  proper  names 
in  the  Egyptian  lists  of  places  conquered  in  Palestine;  and  (3) 
by  the  proper  names  of  the  Hammurabi  period.  This  evidence 
shows  also  that  the  forms  of  the  noun  and  verb  as  found  in 
Biblical  Hebrew  were  already  in  existence.  See  Bohl,  Die 
Sprache  der  Amurnabriefe;  W.  Max  Muller,  Die  Pafastinaliste 
Thutmosis  III;  Clay,  Light  on  the  0  T.  from  Babylon,  p.  147; 
Ranke,  Early  Babylonian  Personal  Names;  and  Knudtzon:  Die 
El-Amarna  Tafeln,  1545-1549. 



still  made  as  late  as  600  B.  C.  Various  documents 
in  Phenician,  Aramaic,  Hittite,  Cypriote,  Cretan, 
Moabite,  Minsean,  Sabean,  and  Hebrew,  from  1000 
B.  C.  to  400  B.  C.,  show  that  during  all  this  period 
documents  of  various  kinds  were  in  use  among  the 
nations  of  western  Asia  in,  and  on  every  side,  of 
Palestine.  The  character  of  the  documents  shows 
also  that  there  must  have  been  a  general  diffusion 
among  the  people  of  the  ability  to  read  and  write.  In 
view  of  all  these  facts,  the  sang  froid  with  which 
these  modern  critics  and  their  followers  affirm  that 
writings  could  not  have  been  produced  among  the 
Hebrews  till  800  or  900  B.  C.  passes  belief.  Against 
the  express  and  reiterated  statements  of  the  biblical 
records  that  writing  was  in  use  among  the  Hebrews 
from  Moses  downward,  supported  as  these  state- 
ments are  by  all  the  direct  evidence  of  the  documents 
of  all  the  surrounding  nations,  they  set  up  their 
opinion — an  opinion  that  receives  no  support  from 
the  documents,  until  they  have  been  arbitrarily 
amended  and  interpreted  in  order  to  bring  them  into 
harmony  with  the  a  priori  opinions  which  on  the  face 
of  them  the  documents  themselves  clearly  condemn. 


The  testimony  supplied  by  the  history  of  the  trans- 
mission of  the  text  of  other  ancient  documents,  sup- 
ported as  it  is  by  what  we  know  of  the  transmission 



of  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament  for  the  last  2,000 
years,  justifies  the  presumption  that  the  copies  of  the 
Old  Testament  text  existent  2,000  years  ago  had  in 
like  manner  been  transmitted  from  their  originals. 

1.  The  fragments  of  classical  writers  found  in  the 
papyri  of  Egypt  when  compared  with  modern  printed 
editions  based  on  manuscripts,  many  of  which  are 
not  a  thousand  years  old  show  that,  with  few  im- 
portant variations,   the  classical  authors  have  been 
correctly  transmitted  for  2,000  to  2,500  years.     In 
the  fragments  of  150  lines  from  Homer  in  the  papyri 
from  Oxyrynchus,  the  Fayum  and  Hibeh,  edited  by 
Grenfell,  Hunt,  and  others,  many  lines  are  exactly 
the  same  as  in  the  edition  of  Munro  Allen.    Most  of 
the  variants  are  merely  slight  such  as  adding  n,  or 
putting  e  for  ei     In  the  two  fragments  of  Herodotus, 
from  the  end  of  the  third  century  A.  D.,  published 
in  the  Oxyrynchus  Papyri,  there  is  no  variant  from 
Dietsch's  edition,  though  there  are  a  few  minor  varia- 
tions from  Stein's  edition. 

2.  The  building  inscriptions  of  Nabunaid  refer  to 
the  fact  that  certain  temples  had  been  built  by  Ham- 
murabi, who  reigned  over  Babylon  1,500  years  be- 
fore his  time,  saying  that  he  had  found  the  temens 
or  foundation  stones  of  Hammurabi.     In  the  copies 
of  records  of  Hammurabi  which  were  made  about  650 
B.    C.    for   the   library   of   Ashurbanipal,    king   of 



Assyria,  and  preserved  in  Nineveh,  mention  is  made 
of  the  founding  of  these  temples.110 

3.  The  library  of  Ashurbanipal  at  Nineveh  had 
thousands  of  documents  that  were  copies  of  originals 
going  back  hundreds,  and  in  some  cases  thousands, 
of  years  before  his  time.111 

4.  Some  parts  of  the  Egyptian  Book  of  the  Dead 
were  in  use  in  the  same   form   for  nearly  4,000 

"°  See  the  Keilinschnftliche  Bibliothek  III,  11,  91,  and  King's 
Letters  of  Hammurabi,  pp  181-3.  An  inscription  of  Hammurabi 
in  Sumenan  says  among  other  things:  "When  Shamash  gave 
unto  him  Shumer  and  Accad  to  rule  and  entrusted  their  sceptre 
to  his  hands,  then  did  (Hammurabi)  build  for  Shamash,  the  lord 
who  is  the  protector  of  his  life,  the  temple  Ebabbar,  his  beloved 
temple,  in  I^arsam,  the  city  of  his  rule."  (King:  Inscriptions 
of  Hammurabi,  p  182  )  In  another  inscription  we  read :  "Ham- 
murabi, the  mighty  king-,  the  king  of  Babylon,  king  of  the  four 
quarters  of  the  world,  hath  built  Ebabbar,  the  temple  of  Shamash 
in  the  city  of  Larsam"  (id.  183).  Referring  to  this  temple 
Nabunaid  says,  that  in  his  tenth  year  Shamash  commanded  him 
to  restore  Ebarra.  He  says  that  he  found  the  temen  and  plan 
of  the  temple  inscribed  with  the  name  of  Hammurabi,  "the  old- 
time  king  who,  700  years  before  Burnaburiash,  Ebarra  and  its 
Zikurat  upon  tie  old  temen  had  built  to  Shamash.  (KB.  III. 

II.  0.    Col.  I.  54.     II.  1-60,  1-32.)     An  inscription  of  Burna- 
buriash states  that  he  restored  the  same  temple  of  Ebarra.    KB. 

III.  II.  153. 

111  See  Dennef eld :  Babylonisch-Assyrische  Geburts-omina,  p.  9. 
3,   on  the   Entstehungszeit,   Entstehungs-und   Ueberlieferungsart 
des  Onginalwerkes ;    also,  Hunger:    Beckenwahrsagung  bei  den 
Babylonlern  und  Assyriern,  II.  503  f* 

112  A  tradition  as  old  as  the  twelfth  dynasty  says  that  chapter 
XXX  B  of  the  Book  of  the  Dead  was  discovered  by  Herutataf 
the  son  of  Khufu  in  the  reign  of  Menkaura,  a  king  of  the  fourth 
dynasty.    It  was  cut  in  hieroglyphics  and  set  under  the  feet  of 
Thoth.    This  prayer  was  still  recited  by  the  Egyptians  in  the 



5.  Scores  of  duplicates  and  triplicates  among  the 
Assyrian,  Babylonian,  and  Egyptian  documents  show 
that  from  2000  B.  C.  down  to  the  year  400  B.  C. 
copies  of  documents  were  often  made  with  absolute 
exactness  and  generally  with  substantial  accuracy.118 

6.  The  variants  in  these  duplicates  show  clearly, 
however,  that  differences  in  spelling,  enumeration, 
and  even  omissions  and  additions,  etc.,  are  no  proof 
in  themselves  of  a  difference  in  either  age  or  author- 
ship.11*   Examples  of  the  different  ways  of  spelling 
will  be  seen  in  the  lists  of  Thothmes  III  at  Karnak. 
Thirty-five  variants  occur  in  119  names.115    In  the  17 
lines  of  tablet  No.  321  of  Strassmaier's  Inschriften 
von  Cyrus  the  duplicate  copy  gives  eight  variants; 

Ptolemaic  period  and  so  must  have  been  in  use  for  about  four 
thousand  years.  See  Budge:  The  Literature  of  the  Egyptians, 
p.  50. 

118  Three  of  these  duplicates  may  be  seen  in  Strassmaier's 
Inschriften  von  Cyrus  and  14  m  his  Inschnften  von  Nebuchad- 
onosor.  See  also  VASD.  The  five  quadrililingual  inscriptions  of 
Darius  on  steles  placed  along  the  Suez  canal  were  duplicates,  as 
were  also  his  Egyptian  inscriptions  at  El  Khergeh  (See  TSBA. 
V.  293  and  Recueil  de  Travaux  VII.  1,  IX.  131,  XL  160  ) 

114  This  appears  most  clearly  and  frequently  from  the  various 
originals  of  the  Behistun  inscriptions  as  they  appear  in  the  four 
recensions  or  editions,  of  which  we  possess  one  each  in  whole  or 
in  part  m  the  Persian,  Susian,  Babylonian,  and  Aramaic.    These 
differences  will  be  discussed  more  fully  when  we  come  to  consider 
the  book  of  Chronicles.    Here  attention  is  called  merely  to  the 
fact  that  the  Babylonian  copy  of  the  Aramaic  varies  frequently 
from  its  original  in  the  enumerations,  and  that  the  Babylonian  and 
Aramaic   recensions   are  much   shorter   than   the   Persian   and 

115  See  plates  in  W.  Max  Muller's  Die  Palastindliste  Thotkmes 



one  supplies  an  erosion,  one  an  omission,  one  an  ex- 
planation, three  are  corrections,  and  two  fuller  writ- 
ings. One  of  the  best  exhibitions  of  duplicates  and 
triplicates  will  be  found  in  Dennefeld's  Geburts- 
Omina.  An  intelligent  study  of  this  masterly  work 
might  well  be  made  a  propaedeutic  to  the  study  of 
textual  criticism,  illustrating  as  it  does  from  numer- 
ous contemporary  documents  all  kinds  of  copyists' 
mistakes  due  to  sight  and  sound. 

7.  Hundreds  of  bilingual  inscriptions  containing 
the  original  Sumerian  with  its  Assyrian  translations, 
some  made  in  the  time  of  Hammurabi  and  some  in 
the  time  of  Ashurbanipal,  as  well  as  the  four  recen- 
sions of  the  Behistun  inscriptions,  known  to  us,  show 
that  the  kinds  of  variations  that  we  find  between  the 
Hebrew  text  and  its  versions  are  to  be  found  in  them. 
As  these  variations  do  not  impair  the  general  veracity 
of  these  extra-biblical  documents  nor  militate  against 
their  antiquity  or  genuineness,  so  neither  do  the 
variations  of  the  Hebrew  text  destroy  their  general 
and  essential  trustworthiness.116 

116  More  than  2,000  interlinear  texts  are  mentioned  in  Bezold's 
Catalogue  of  the  Cuneiform  Texts  in  the  Kouyunjik  Collection 
of  "the  British  Museum.  Good  examples  are  published  in.  The 
Seven  Tablets  of  Creation  by  Prof  L  W  King-,  pp  130-139, 
180  On  page  217  of  this  same  work  will  be  found  an  example 
of  a  work  in  Sumerian  containing  word  for  word  explanations 
in  Assyrian.  Hundreds  of  such  texts  have  been  found  in  the 
library  of  Kttyunjik  (see  Bezold's  Catalogue,  pp.  2010,  2092- 
2103),  One  of  the  most  interesting  of  these  bilingual  inscriptions 
is  by  SamsuMuna,  successor  of  Hammurabi,  of  which  there  are 



8.  If  the  original  documents  of  the  duplicates  of 
the  Old  Testament  (making  about  one-fifth  of  the 
whole)  were  written  in  cuneiform  script,  most  of  the 
variations  between  them  could  be  paralleled  by  the 
variations  in  the  translations  of  the  Assyrian  from 
the  Sumerian.117 


But  the  strongest  argument  against  the  critics  from 
the  textual  point  of  view  is  the  childlike  simplicity 
with  which  they  appeal  to  that  part  of  the  text  which 
happens  to  suit  their  particular  theory  of  Old  Testa- 
ment history,  literature  or  religion.  After  having, 
in  order  to  prove  this  theory,  cast  out,  without  one 
item  of  evidence  to  support  them,  hundreds  of  words 
from  the  prima  facie  text  of  the  documents,  they 
proceed  to  point  and  interpret  what  remains  with  as 
much  assurance  as  if  they  had  really  proven  beyond 
all  controversy  that  what  they  had  arbitrarily  cast 
out  was  false  and  with  as  much  presumption  as  if 

two  copies  of  the  Sumerian  original  and  two  copies  of  the  Baby- 
lonian version,  with  slight  variants  in  both  originals  and  ver- 
sions (see  King:  The  Letters  of  Hammurabi,  p.  198  f). 

117  E  g  the  numerous  synonyms  in  the  parallel  passages  of 
Kings  and  Chronicles  may  be  compared  to  the  rendering  of  DIM, 
in  the  creation  tablets,  by  ba-ni,  ba-na-at,  ip-se-*tf  and  e-pu-u$, 
and  BA-RU  by  e-pu-us,  and  ib-ta«ni.  See  the  Creation  of  the 
World  by  Marduk  in  King's  Seven  Tablets  of  Creation,  I.  130- 
139.  On  this  subject  the  author  of  this  article  read  a  paper  at 
the  International  Congress  of  Orientalists  in  St  Louis  in  1904. 
He  hopes  to  be  able  to  publish  this  paper  at  an  early  date. 

7  [97] 


they  had  actually  proven  that  what  they  have  retained 
is  true.  What  would  a  court  do  with  a  plaintiff  that 
desired  to  have  a  document  admitted  as  evidence  in 
support  of  his  side  of  the  case,  after  the  same  plain- 
tiff had  charged  that  the  document  was  neither 
genuine,  authentic,  nor  historical,  and  after  the  docu- 
ment had  been  amended  to  suit  the  contention  of  the 
plaintiff?  Would  the  court  not  demand  at  least  that 
the  plaintiff  should  prove  beyond  controversy  that 
the  parts  of  the  documents  that  the  plaintiff  desired 
to  introduce  as  evidence  were  reliable,  as  claimed? 
And  since  in  almost  every  instance  of  such  claim  the 
critics  are  unable  to  produce  any  proof — simply  be- 
cause no  such  proof  exists, — is  it  not  obvious  that 
they  must  be  debarred  from  introducing  as  evidence 
the  parts  that  support  their  side,  as  long  at  least  as 
they  insist  on  denying  the  evidence  of  the  parts  that 
support  the  defense  ?  In  short,  no  argument  can  be 
made  against  that  part  of  the  text  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment which  upholds  the  prima  facie  evidence  of  the 
documents,  which  will  not  overthrow  in  a  much 
greater  degree  the  text  that  the  critics  attempt  to 


In  view  of  this  mass  of  evidence,  analogy  and 
admission,  the  following  conclusions  seem  to  be 
justified : 

1.  The  traditional  text  has  in  its  favor  in  the  case 
of  the  most  important  of  the  documents  the  claim 



to  have  been  in  its  original  form  written  by,  or  for, 
certain  definite  persons  and  to  have  been  written  in 
the  places  and  at  the  times  mentioned;  and  the  pos- 
sibility of  their  having  been  written  as  claimed  is 
supported  by  the  outside  evidence  that  writing  was 
then  in  vogue,  that  the  literary  forms  in  which  the  text 
is  written  were  then  known,  that  the  Hebrew  language 
was  then  in  use,  that  scribes  and  copyists  were  then 
existent,  that  the  contents  are  in  harmony  with  what 
is  known  of  the  times  when  they  claim  to  have  been 

2.  The  proof  that  the  copies  of  the  original  docu- 
ments have  been  handed  down  with  substantial  cor- 
rectness for  more  than  2,000  years  cannot  be  denied. 
That  the  copies  in  existence  2,000  years  ago  had  been 
in  like  manner  handed  down  from  the  originals  is  not 
merely  possible,  but,  as  we  have  shown,  is  rendered 
probable  by  the  analogies  of  Babylonian  documents 
now  existing  of  which  we  have  both  originals  and 
copies,  thousands  of  years  apart,  and  of  scores  of 
papyri  which  show  when  compared  with  our  modern 
editions  of  the  classics  that  only  minor  changes  of  the 
text  have  taken  place  in  more  than  2,000  years  and 
especially  by  the  scientific  and  demonstrable  ac- 
curacy with  which  the  proper  spelling  of  the  names 
of  kings  and  of  the  numerous  foreign  terms  embedded 
in  the  Hebrew  text  has  been  transmitted  to  us.118 

us  By  substantial  as  used  in  the  above  statements  we  mean  that 
the  text  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  the  other  documents  have 



3.  From  the  above  given  array  of  evidence  and 
especially  from  the  fact  that  the  destructive  critics 
themselves  make  use  of  the  traditional  text  in  sup- 
port of  every  theory  which  they  have  broached,  the 
conclusion  is  irresistible  that  the  textus  receptus  must 
be  accepted  in  its  prima  facie  consonantal  form  as 
correct  and  reliable  in  all  cases  where  there  is  no  irre- 
fragable weight  of  outside  evidence,  or  at  least  of 
general  analogy,  against  it. 

4.  In  view  of  the  thoroughly  established  fact  that 
the  vowel  signs  were  not  added  to  the  consonantal 
text  till  about  600  A.  D.,  and  that  the  vowel  letters 
were  subject  to  change  as  late  as  the  latest  manu- 
scripts, it  results  that  all  arguments  based  on  specific 
vowel  pointings  must  be  abandoned,  unless  the  point- 
ings can  be  proven  from  outside  evidence  to  be  cor- 

been  changed  only  in  respect  to  those  accidental  matters  which 
necessarily  accompany  the  transmission  of  all  texts  where  origi- 
nals have  not  been  preserved  and  which  consequently  exist  merely 
in  copies  or  copies  of  copies  Such  changes  may  be  called  minor 
in  that  they  do  not  seriously  affect  the  doctrines  of  the  documents 
nor  the  general  impression  and  evident  veracity  of  their  state- 
ments as  to  geography,  chronology,  and  other  historical  matters 

119  Thus,  Wellhausen's  view  in  his  History  of  Israel,  p  389, 
that  xakar  "male"  was  m  earlier  times  zakur  and  that  sakur  must 
be  substituted  for  zakar  in  Ex  xxxiv  9,  Deut  xv.  19,  and  1  1C 
xi  15  seq.,  and  zakar  read  in  all  so-called  later  documents,  is 
purely  subjective  and  without  any  possible  objective  evidence  in 
its  favor.  So,  also,  the  pointing  of  •»»  in  Ecc.  ni  6  represents 
merely  the  exegesis  of  the  Massontes  and  not  necessarily  the 
intention  of  the  original  writer  (LOT,  474).  Objection  to  the 


5.  In  view  of  the  exactness  with  which  the  proper 
names  of  persons  and  places  have  been  transmitted 
for  4,000  years  and  their  general  agreement  in  the 
parallel  passages,  the  presumption  is,  that  the  names 
for  God,  also,  have  been  rightly  transmitted.  This 
presumption  lays  the  burden  of  proof  upon  the 
critics,  who,  in  order  to  establish  their  theory,  arbi- 
trarily and  without  any  direct  evidence  in  their  favor, 
throw  out  Hlohim  from  every  place  where  it  occurs 
in  Gen.  ii.  3-iv,  and  Jehovah  from  many  passages  in 
other  parts.120 

Finally,  the  analogy  of  the  transmission  of  texts  as 
shown  among  the  Egyptians,  Babylonians,  Assyrians, 
Persians,  Greeks,  and  Arabs,  shows  that  there  is  a 
presumption  against  the  theory  of  the  critics  that  the 
Hexateuch  is  the  result  of  the  work  of  seventeen  or 
more  authors  and  redactors,  combining  in  an  inex- 
plicable and  inextricable  confusion,  three  or  four 
parallel  accounts  and  four,  or  more,  recensions  of 

arguments  for  the  late  date  of  Deuteronomy  based  on  the  use  of 
nathan  and  'asa  in  11.  12,  would  be  sufficiently  met  by  pointing 
nothen  and  fose. 

120  The  unjustifiable  procedure  of  the  critics  with  regard  to 
the  names  of  God  is  further  shown  by  the  analogy  of  the  Koran, 
where  we  find  the  same  variety  in  the  use  of  the  words  for  Lord 
and  God  that  we  meet  with  in  the  Pentateuch.  This  statement 
is  based  on  a  comparative  concordance  of  Allaha  and  Tab,  which 
was  prepared  by  me  and  published  in  the  PTR  for  1921.  It  shows 
that  some  Suras  use  neither,  some  one  or  the  other,  and  some  both ; 
and  this  in  all  kinds  of  variations  that  are  found  in  the  Pentateuch. 



laws  representing  widely  different  periods  of  time 
and  development121 

121  The  analogy  of  the  great  historical  work  of  Herodotus  and 
of  great  works  of  fiction  like  Don  Quixote,  or  Victor  Hugo's 
Don  Cesar,  is  convincing  that  duplicates  such  as  are  found  in 
the  Pentateuch  are  true  to  life  The  biographies,  also,  of 
Thothmes  III  and  Tiglath  Pileser  I  and  Alexander  and  Caesar 
are  as  full  of  similar  events  as  are  those  of  Abraham  and  Moses. 
Csssar's  accounts  of  his  two  voyages  to  Britain  and  of  his  two 
bridges  over  the  Rhine  are  beautiful  examples  of  tfiem.  Alex- 
ander was  always  consulting  his  mantis.  "Lives  of  great  men 
all  remind  us/' 







IASSING  from  the  text  to  the  grammar  we  find 
that  in  this  line  of  attack  upon  the  Scriptures, 
the  latest  evidence  is  also  against  the  critics. 


In  one  of  the  standard  introductions  to  the  Old 
Testament122  the  assertion  is  made  that  the  use  of 
"the  frequent  abstract  formations  in  uth,  on  and  an" 
in  the  book  of  Ecclesiastes  is  among  the  proofs  "so 
absolutely  convincing  and  irrefutable"  of  the  late  date 
of  the  work,  "that  as  Delitzsch  exclaims:  'If  the 
book  of  Koheleth  be  as  old  as  Solomon,  then  there 
can  be  no  history  of  the  Hebrew  language/  "  Since 
Prof.  Cornill  here  cites  Delitzsch  as  his  authority,  let 
us  rule  Cornill  out  of  court  as  giving  hearsay  evidence 
and  address  ourselves  to  what  Delitzsch  says.123  He 
•was  one  of  the  greatest  Hebrew  scholars  of  his  gen- 
eration, and  fifty  years  ago  his  testimony  on  a  matter 
concerning  the  history  of  the  Hebrew  language  was 
as  good  as  possible.  But  a  history  of  the  Hebrew 
language  was  in  his  time  not  possible.  Gesenius, 
Ewald,  Delitzsch,  Keil,  and  all  those  brilliant  scholars 

122  Cornill,  Introduction  to  the  Canonical  Books  <of  the  O.  T.f 
p.  449. 

12*  In  his  Commentary  to  Ecclesiastes. 



of  the  nineteenth  century  are  as  much  behind  the 
times  today  as  expert  witnesses  to  the  history  of  the 
Hebrew  language  as  Professor  Langley  would  be  in 
Aeronautics,  or  a  surgeon  of  the  Civil  War  in  com- 
parison with  a  professor  in  Johns  Hopkins.  For  since 
Delitzsch  wrote  the  above,  the  Tel-el-Amarna  Letters, 
the  works  of  Hammurabi,  the  Hebrew  of  Ecclesiasti- 
cus,  of  the  Zadokite  Fragments,  and  of  the  Samaria 
Ostraka,  the  Sendschirli  inscriptions,  the  Aramaic 
papyri  and  endorsements,  and  thousands  of  Egyptian, 
Babylonian,  Assyrian,  Phemcian,  Aramaic,  Palmy- 
rene,  Nabatean,  Hebrew,  and  other  documents  throw- 
ing light  on  the  Old  Testament  and  its  language  have 
been  discovered.  These  documents  prove  that  the 
old-time  alleged  histories  of  the  Hebrew  language 
were  largely  subjective  and  fallacious;  and  that  the 
presence  of  words  with  endings  uth,  on,  and  an,  is  no 
indication  of  the  age  in  which  a  document  was 

Thus  as  to  uth,  or  ut,  we  have  abundant  evidence 
to  show  that  it  was  common  in  every  one  of  the  four 
great  Semitic  families  of  languages  except  Arabic, 
where  the  unborrowed  form  is  seldom  found.12* 

For  example,   in   Assyrio-Babylonian,   there   are 

124  Wright  in  his  Arabic  Grammar  gives  four  examples  of 
forms  of  words  with  this  ending.  See  Vol  I,  p  166  These  four 
and  four  others,  rahabut,  rahamut,  subrut,  and  tarbut,  are  cer- 
tainly derived  from  the  Aramaic.  In  a  few  cases,  such  as  ragra- 
buthf  salabut,  and  darbut,  no  Aramaic,  Hebrew,  or  Babylonian 
equivalent  has  been  found. 



three  of  them  in  the  seven  creation  tablets,125  six  in 
the  letters  and  inscriptions  of  Hammurabi,126  thirteen 
in  the  Code  of  Hammurabi,127  thirteen  in  DennefekTs 
omen  tablets,128  fifteen  in  the  Amarna  letters,12* 
eighteen  to  twenty  in  the  inscriptions  of  Tiglath- 
Pileser  I,180  two  in  the  incantations  published  by 
Thompson,131  and  ten  in  the  astrological  tablets  of  the 
same  editor.182  These  inscriptions  were  written  from 
2000  B.  C.  to  about  625  B.  C. 

In  the  pre-Christian  Aramaic  we  have  five  words 
with  this  ending  in  the  Sendschirli  inscriptions  from 
north  Syria  of  about  the  year  725.133  The  Aramaic 
portions  of  Daniel  and  Ezra  each  have  four  and  the 
Sachau  Papyri  four  or  five. 

In  the  Old  Testament  we  find  from  41  to  55  words 
of  this  form.18*  These  forms  are  found  in  every  one 
of  the  twenty-four  books  of  the  Hebrew  canon  except 
the  Song  of  Songs,  Ruth  and  Lamentations.  Unfor- 
tunately for  the  argument  that  the  ending  denotes 
lateness,  nine  of  these  words  occur  in  Isaiah,  eighteen 

«5Kin£,  The  Seven  Tablets  of  Creation,  pp.  252,  254,  262. 
126  King,  The  Letters  and  Inscriptions  of  Hammurabi,  259-296. 
"TR.  F.  Harper,  The  Code  of  Hammurabi,  147-191. 

128  Babylonisch-Assyrische  Geburts-Owma,  220-232. 

129  Winckler,  Tel-el-Amarna  Letters,  1-34. 

180Lotz,  Die  Inschrift  Tiglatk-pileser's,  I,  pp.  204-218. 

isi  The  Devils  and  Evil  Spirits  of  Babylonia,  II,  165-179. 

182  The  Reports  of  the  Magicians  and  Astrologers  of  Nineveh 
and  Babylon,  II,  113-152. 

is*  ro«5  into,  ravna,  iste. 

is*  Fifty-five,  if  we  count  the  forms  in  uth  from  verbs  whose 
third  radical  was  wow  or  yodh. 



in  Jeremiah,  seven  in  Proverbs,  seven  in  Samuel- 
Kings,  one  in  Hosea  and  one  in  Amos,  two  in  Ezekiel, 
two  in  Deuteronomy,  two  in  H  and  four  in  JE.  Of 
the  documents  that  some  or  all  critics  place  after  the 
captivity,  Ezra  has  two  words  ending  in  uih,  Nehe- 
miah  three,  Chronicles  three,  Haggai  one,  Daniel  one, 
Job  one,  Psalms  five,  P  two,  Esther  one,  and  Ecclesi- 
astes  five  or  six.135  Joel,  Jonah,  Malachi,  Ruth,  the 
Song  of  Songs,  Lamentations,  and  the  parts  of 
Zechariah,  Proverbs  and  Isaiah,  placed  by  the  critics 
in  post-captivity  times  have  no  words  with  this  end- 

In  all  the  biblical  documents  claimed  as  post-exilic 
by  the  critics,  the  only  words  with  this  ending,  not 
occurring  in  exilic  or  pre-exilic  documents,  and  found 
in  documents  alleged  by  anyone  to  be  from  the 
Maccabean  times  are  tfffy^  youth  (Ps.  ex.  3),18T 

las  of  these  words  the  only  ones  not  found  in  the  documents 
which  the  critics  place  before  the  exile  are  fittSp  (Ezra  and  Nehe- 
miah),  mwnn  (Dan,  xi.  23),  mrAn  (Job  vi.  6),  ftA»»  (Ps.  ex. 
3;  Ecc  xi  9,  10),  navhB  (Ps.  Ixxhi.  28,  and  Haggai  i.  3),  and 
fcAhn,  tvbtt9  filing  and  ft^W  in  Ecclesiastes. 

136  The  words  ending  in  ttth  in  Is.  xl-lx  occur  in  xli.  12,  xlix. 
19,  L  1,  3  and  liv.  4.  All  of  these  passages  are  put  by  Duhm  and 
Cheyne  in  the  original  work  of  Deutero-Isaiah.  (LOT,  p  245.) 
Proverbs  xxx  and  xxxi,  according  to  Dr.  Driver,  "doubtless  of 
post-exilic  origin,"  have  no  words  ending  in  uth. 

187  Cheyne  puts  this  psalm  in  Maccabean  times.  Christ  accord- 
ing to  Matthew  xx.  44,  Mark  xii.  36  and  Luke  xx.  42  and  Peter 
according  to  Acts  ii.  34,  ascribe  it  to  David  in  terms  as  explicit 
as  language  can  employ.  Matthew  xxii.  44  introduces  the  cita- 
tion from  Psalm  ex.  1  by  saying:  How  then  doth  David  in  spirit 
call  him  Lord?  Mark  xii.  36  says:  For  David  himself  said  by 



league  (Dan.  xi.  23),  and  four  words  in 

Ecclesiasticus  (180  B.C.)  has  four  words  in  uth 
not  occurring  in  Biblical  Hebrew138  and  the  Zadokite 
Fragments  (40  A.  D.)  have  two.189 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  this  ending  is  no  proof 
of  the  date  of  a  Hebrew  document,  nor  in  fact  of  a 
document  in  Babylonian,  Assyrian,  or  Aramaic.  The 
ending  simply  denotes  abstract  terms.  In  the  account 
which  Bar  Hebraeus  gives  of  the  life  of  Mohammed, 
he  has  but  one  abstract  ending  in  the  account  of  his 
active  career  and  seven  in  the  account  of  his  doc- 

So  in  the  Bible  the  books  treating  of  concrete 
events,  whether  early  or  late,  have  but  one  or  two  of 
these  words;1*1  whereas  those  treating  of  more 
abstract  ideas  have  more  words  with  this  ending  what- 
ever the  date.1*2  JE,  the  earliest  part  of  the  Penta- 

the  Holy  Ghost.  Luke  xx.  42  says:  David  himself  saith  in  the 
Book  of  Psalms.  Lastly,  in  Acts  ii.  34  Peter,  in  his  great  ser- 
mon on  the  day  of  Pentecost  says:  For  David  is  not  ascended 
into  the  heavens:  but  he  saith  himself,  The  Lord  said  unto  my 
Lord,  etc.  Reader,  what  think  ye  of  Christ?  Whose  son  is  he? 
What  think  ye  of  the  Holy  Ghost?  Was  Peter  filled  with  Him? 
(Acts  ii.  4.)  See  further  in  my  articles  on  the  Headings  of  the 
Psalms  in  the  PTR  for  1926 

"a  fax,  ftAna,  tvfOA  and  mron. 

180  ftvny  and  nntpy. 

«°  See  the  Chromcon  Syriacum,  Paris,  1890,  pp   97-99. 

141  Josh   two,  Jud   one,  1  Sa.  two,  2  Sa.  two,  1  K.  two,  2  K. 
two,  1  Ch.  two,  2  Ch.  three,  Ezra  two,  Neh.  three,  Dan.  one. 

142  Thus,  Prov.  has  seven,  Is.  nine,  Jer.  eight,  Ecc.  six  (Ecclus. 



teuch,  according  to  the  critics,  has  four  words  ending 
in  £th*M  whereas  P,  the  latest  part,  has  only  two.1" 

That  Hebrew  nouns  ending  in  n  (nun),  i.  e.,  the 
forms  in  on  and  an,  should  be  considered  late  is  even 
less  justifiable  than  in  the  case  of  uth.  For  there  are 
about  140  of  such  nouns  in  Hebrew  occurring  in  all 
ages  of  the  literature;  and  they  are  found,  also,  in 
Babylonian,  Assyrian  and  Arabic,  as  well  as  in  New 
Hebrew  and  Aramaic.  Besides  in  many  cases,  as  in 
]Tf?tif9  the  nouns  cannot  have  been  derived  from  the 
Aramaic,  simply  because  they  have  been  found  in  no 
Aramaic  dialect  of  any  age.145 

Leaving  the  morphology  and  coming  to  the  syntax, 
we  find  that  here  also  the  critics  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment cannot  support  their  charges  by  the  evidence. 
The  charge  that  the  Hebrew  perfect  forms  of  the 
verb  employed  in  Ex.  xv  and  Deut  i,  show  that  these 
chapters  were  written  after  the  conquest  of  Canaan, 
breaks  down  when  we  learn  that  Hebrew  perfects  are 
often  equivalent  to  English  future  perfects,  or  even 
to  an  emphatic  future.146 

fin?,  nnaa, 

found  also  in  JE.  and  tttett  in  Jos.  xiii.  21,  27,  30,  31 
a  word  found  also  in  Hos  i.  4,  1  Sam.  xv  28,  2  Sam  xvi.  3, 
and  Jer.  xxvL  1.  The  opinion  of  Delitzsch  was  probably  founded 
on  the  numerous  occurrences  of  this  ending  in  the  version  of 
Onkelos,  where  there  are  sixty,  or  sixty-one  nouns  with  this  end- 
ing (see  Bredenck's  Konkordanz) 

145  For  a  further  discussion  of  these  endings,  see  p.  147  f. 

146  Called  in  Hebrew  grammars  the  perfect  of  certainty. 



Again  it  is  charged  that  the  frequent  use  of  wait 
conjunctive1***  with  the  perfect  in  Ecclesiastes  is  a 
proof  that  the  book  is  one  of  the  latest  in  the  Old 
Testament.  The  discovery  of  the  Hebrew  of  Ben 
Sira  has  broken  the  force  of  this  argument;  for  we 
find  that  in  it  the  wau  conversing  is  used  with  the  im- 
perfect 120  times  and  33  times  with  the  perfect  as 
against  only  5  examples  of  wau  conjunctive  with  the 
perfect.  Moreover,  the  Zadokite  Fragments  have  wau 
conversive  with  the  imperfect  85  times  and  with  the 
perfect  35  times,  as  against  wau  conjunctive  16  times 
with  the  imperfect  and  only  3  times  with  the  perfect. 

Again  the  critics  have  failed  to  explain  how  the  use 
of  this  construction  in  Ecclesiastes  can  be  due  to  the 
time  when  the  work  was  written  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  Daniel  which  they  put  at  about  the  same  time  as 
Ecclesiastes  has  about  200  cases  of  wau  conversive 
with  the  imperfect  and  75  with  the  perfect,  and  only 
about  5  of  wau  conjunctive  with  the  perfect.  Again, 
if  the  use  is  due  to  the  time,  why  is  it  that  it  is  found 
only  in  Ecclesiastes  and  not  in  the  so-called  Mac- 
cabean  psalms  and  the  numerous  other  documents 
which  the  critics  assert  to  be  late?  Again,  how  ex- 
plain its  presence  twice  in  Judges  v  which  many 

146aThe  Hebrew  forms  Perfect  and  Imperfect  refer  to  the 
character  of  the  action  as  regards  completeness  and  not  as  to 
time.  The  Hebrew  conjunction  Wau  or  w,  usually  with  a  change 
of  accent  and  vocalization,  has  the  power  of  changing  the  sense 
of  a  Perfect  to  that  of  an  Imperfect,  or  the  sense  of  an  Imper- 
fect to  that  of  a  Perfect 



critics  consider  to  be  the  earliest  document  in  the  Old 
Testament;  or  that  the  perfect  occurs  with  wau  con- 
junctive in  Num.  xxiii,  xxiv  seven  times,  to  two  times 
with  wau  conversvve?  It  will  not  do  to  attempt  to  in- 
validate this  explicit  testimony  of  Ben  Sira,  the 
Zadokite  Fragments,  Daniel,  and  the  writings  alleged 
by  the  critics  themselves  to  be  from  definite  periods 
by  saying  that  it  is  impossible  otherwise  to  bring  some 
of  the  uses  of  Ecclesiastes  within  the  period  of  some 
critic's  definition  of  what  were  the  limits  of  use  in 
good  Hebrew  for  the  perfect  with  wau  conjunctive; 
for  the  probability  certainly  is  that  whoever  wrote 
Ecclesiastes  knew  more  about  those  limits  than  any 
of  our  modern  professors.  Shades  of  Jean  Paul, 
Carlyle,  and  Walt  Whitman!  Ye  could  not  have 
written  in  the  19th  century,  for  no  other  mortals 
wrote  like  you. 


Whatever  may  be  the  explanation  of  the  Priestly 
Document's  use  of  the  phrase  "a  hundred  of"  instead 
of  "a  hundred/' 14T  it  is  certainly  no  indication  of  the 
age  of  the  document  nor  of  an  authorship  different 
from  that  of  J,  E,  D,  and  H. 

Starting  out  with  the  thesis  that  "statistical  data 
besides  genealogies  are  a  conspicuous  feature"  in  the 
narrative  of  P,148  the  critics  in  order  to  sustain  their 

147 1.  e.,  of  the  use  of  the  construct,  (n«B)  instead  of  the  abso- 
lute (rwo). 

,  127. 



thesis  violently  and  without  any  evidence  ascribe 
nearly  all  of  the  passages  containing  the  word  for 
"hundred"  to  P,  with  the  result  that  the  word  occurs 
according  to  their  claims  50  times  in  P,  and  only  5 
times  in  E,  twice  each  in  J  and  D  and  once  in  H.  Of 
these  60  cases,  one  in  J,  three  in  E,  one  in  D  and  one 
in  P  occur  before  wau,  where  the  use  of  the  construct 
state  would  be  of  course  impossible.  Ruling  these  out 
as  having  no  bearing  on  the  discussion,  we  have  re- 
maining 49  cases  in  P,  two  in  E,  and  one  each  in  D, 
H,  and  J.  The  example  in  H  where  the  construct 
me'ath  is  found  before  mikkem  is  accounted  for  by 
the  fact  that  the  genitival  relationship  might  have 
meant  "your  hundred"  instead  of  "a  hundred  of 
you."  The  case  in  J  (Gen.  xxvi.  12)  cannot  indicate 
the  age  of  the  document,  since  the  same  phrase  occurs 
nowhere  else  in  the  Old  Testament.149  Of  the  two 
cases  assigned  to  E,  the  one  in  Josh.  xxiv.  32  is  a  cita- 
tion from  Gen.  xxxiii.  19.  This  verse  is  one  of  four 
(Gen.  xxxiii.  18,  19,  20  and  xxxiv.  1)  which  the 
critics,  without  any  support  from  manuscripts  or  ver- 
sions, or  elsewhere,  arbitrarily  divide  up  into  six  dif- 
ferent portions.  The  word  keshita  which  occurs  here 
and  in  the  citation  in  Josh.  xxiv.  32  is  found  nowhere 
else  except  in  Job  xhi.  11.  In  combination  with  the 

149  That  is,  followed  by  a^pffy  the  phrase  meaning  *ea  hundred 
fold."  The  only  analogy  to  this  is  in  2  Sa.  xxiv.  3  (parallel  to  2 
Ch.  xxi.  3)  "a  hundred  tunes";  but  in  these  passages  D'Qj?B  is 

8  [113] 


word  for  hundred  it  occurs  only  in  Gen.  xxxiii,  19 
and  in  the  citation  of  it  in  Josh.  xxiv.  32.  The  only 
instance  remaining  outside  of  P  is  that  in  Deut  xxiL 
19  where  it  speaks  of  "one  hundred  (pieces  of) 
silver."  This  is  paralleled  exactly  only  in  Jud.  xvi. 
5 15° 

Of  the  forty-nine  cases  where  the  word  "hundred'* 
is  used  in  P,  22  are  in  apposition  or  the  absolute  state, 
as  in  "a  hundred  sheep/'  while  27  are  followed  by 
the  genitive,  as  in  "a  score  of  sheep."  Of  the  former, 
four  may  be  ruled  out  (Ex.  xxvii.  9,  18,  xxxviii.  9, 
11)  because  they  are  followed  by  the  preposition  3 
(b),  one  (Ex.  xxvii.  11)  because  it  is  followed  by  an 
accusative  of  specification,  one,  (Num.  vii.  86)  be- 
cause it  stands  at  the  end  of  the  sentence,  and  one  in 
Num.  ii.  24-  because  it  stands  absolutely  for  "a  hun- 
dred." Of  the  remaining  fifteen,  thirteen  stand  abso- 
lutely, the  term  for  shekels  having  been  omitted;  so 
that  only  two  cases  are  left  where  the  common  genitival 
construction  (with  fiKD)  might  have  been  used.  These 
occur  in  Gen.  xvii.  17  and  xxiii.  1,  places  in  P  where 
"hundred  of"  could  possibly  have  been  used  instead 
of  "hundred."  In  both  of  these  cases  it  is  used  before 
the  noun  for  year,  which  is  remarkable,  because  P 

150  In  Jud.  xvii.  2  we  have  an  example  similar  to  that  in  Deut. 
xxii  19  except  that  the  definite  article  is  used  before  the  word 
for  silver.  In  Neh.  v.  11  the  word  n«o  is  used  before  the  noun 
for  silver  accompanied  by  the  definite  article. 


usually  (17  times  in  all)151  employs  "hundred  of." 
P  also  has  "hundred  of"  three  times  before  talent**2 
four  times  before  the  word  for  thousand™*  twice  be- 
fore day™**  and  once  before  base.™* 

Outside  of  P,  hundred  before  the  noun  is  found  in 
Josh,  one  time,  Jud.  four,  J  one,  E  two,  D  one,  1 
Sam.  two,  2  Sam.  four,  1  Ki.  five,  2  Ki.  four,  Isa. 
two,  Ezk.  ten,  I  Chron.  six,  2  Chron.  four,  Ezra  two, 
Esth.  three,  i.e.,  twenty-four  times  in  the  literature 
preceding  the  exile,  twelve  in  Isaiah  xl-lxvi  and 
Ezekiel,  and  fifteen  in  the  post-exilic  books.155 

»*  Gen,  v.  3,  6,  18,  25,  28,  xi  10,  25,  xxi.  5,  xxv.  7,  17,  xxxv. 
28,  xlvu.  9,  28,  Ex.  vi.  16,  18,  20,  and  Num.  xxxiii.  39. 

152  Ex.  xxxvm   25,  27*   (twice  with  the  article).    As  to  the 
use  of  *D3  we  find  it  as  early  as  2  Sam.  xii.  30,  1  Kings  ix.  14, 

28,  x.  10,  14,  xvi.  24,  xx.  39,  2  Kings  v.  5,  22,  232,  xv.  19,  xviii. 
142,  xxiii   332,  and  as  late  as  1  Chron.  xix.  6,  xx.  2,  xxii.  142, 
xxix.  4s,  7*.  2  Chron.  iii.  8,  iv.  17,  viii.  18,  ix.  9,  13,  xxv.  6,  9, 
xxvii.  5,  xxxvi.  3,  Ezra  viii.  262,  Es.  in.  9.    With  fi»Q  it  is  used 
in  1  Kings  ix.  14,  x.  10,  2  Kings  xxiii.  33,  2  Chron.  xxvii.  5, 
xxxvL  3. 

153  Num.  ii.  9,  16,  24,  31.    Before  P^K  we  find  n»D  1  Kings  xx. 

29,  2  Kings  iii.  42,  1  Chron.  v.  21,  xxi.  5,  xxii.  14,  xxix.  7,  2 
Chron.  xxv.  6. 

10«a  Gen.  vii.  24,  viii.  3. 

15*Ex.  xxxviii.  27. 

185  two  is  used  elsewhere  as  follows :  before  aan  (2  Sam.  viii. 
4,  1  Chron.  xviii.  4),  O'Dyfij  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  3,  1  Chron.  xxi.  3), 
fiD«,  (1  Kings  vii.  2,  Ek.  ad.  19,  23,  27,  472,  xli.  132,  14,  15,  xlii. 
8),  D'«D3  (1  Kings  xviii.  4),  W*  (1  Kings,  xviii.  13,  2  Kings 
iv.  43,  Jud.  vii.  19,  xx.  35),  W#  (Isaiah  Ixv.  202),  »p3  (Jud. 
xvi.  5,  xvii.  2  [with  article]),  De.  xxii.  19  D'p'D*  (1  Sam.  xxv. 
18,  2  Sam.  xvi.  1),  ]«*  (1  Kings  v.  3),  nano  Es.  i  1,  viii.  9, 
ix.  30),  tvtrv  (1  Sam.  xvni.  25,  2  Sam.  iii.  14),  nnyw  Gen. 
xxvl  12  (J),  and  rttt'ffp  Gen.  xxxiii.  19,  Jos.  xxix.  32  (E). 



"Hundred  of"  is  used  only  three  times  in  the  post- 
exilic  books 156 

The  extra-biblical  evidence  is  as  follows: 
The  Mesha  inscription  in  Moabitic,  which  is  a  form 
of  Hebrew,  has  the  phrase,  "a  hundred  of  cattle"  (]*lpj 
AMD).  The  date  of  this  inscription  is  the  early  part  of 
the  ninth  century  B.  C.  The  Siloah  inscription  from 
about  700  B.  C.  has  the  phrase  "a  hundred  of 
cubit." 15T  Unfortunately  neither  construction  is 
found  in  Ben  Sir  a,  nor  in  the  Z  ado  kite  Fragments.  In 
the  Egyptian  Pyramid  Texts  the  numeral  preceded 
the  noun;  but  in  the  records  of  about  1530  to  1050 
B.  C.  the  numeral  is  put  before  the  noun  in  the 
genitival  construction.158  In  the  Tel-el-Amarna 
Letters,  me-at  (=  DKD)  occurs  twice;  once  in  25.10 
before  eru  "copper"  and  once  in  19.39  before  Urn 
"thousand."  159  We  thus  see  that  the  earliest  Hebrew 
records  and  the  Egyptian  and  Babylonian  documents 
nearest  to  the  time  of  the  Exodus  support  the  prev- 
alent use  of  "hundred  of"  as  we  find  it  in  P. 

But  neither  do  the  critics  have  support  in  the  later 
Semitic  documents  for  their  theory  that  the  use  of 
"hundred  of"  before  the  noun  indicates  lateness  for 
the  document  in  which  it  occurs.  In  Syriac  the 

"•Nefau  v.  11,  2  Chr  xxv  9,  Es.  i.  4. 

i5^  See  Lidzbarski,  Nordsemitische  Epigraphik,  pp.  106,  114, 
416,  439. 

15«Erman,  Aegypten,  63,  and  Aegyptische  Grammatik,  §  142. 

«»Windder,  Tel-el-Amarna  Letters,  pp.  48,  80, 



numeral  stands  in  apposition  either  before  or  after 
that  which  is  numbered.160  The  Biblical  Aramaic 
and  the  inscriptions  and  papyri  afford  no  examples 
affecting  the  question.161  The  New  Hebrew  follows 
the  biblical  usages.162 

From  all  the  above  testimony  it  is  evident  that 
there  is  no  basis  in  the  use  of  the  word  for  "hundred" 
for  concluding  that  P  may  not  have  been  written  by 


The  charge  is  made  that  the  Hebrew  of  Daniel 
"resembles  not  the  Hebrew  of  Ezekiel  or  even  of 
Haggai  or  Zechariah  but  that  of  the  age  subsequent 
to  Nehemiah"  One  of  the  alleged  proofs  of  the 
charge  is  that  in  Dan.  i.  21  and  viii.  1  the  name  of 
the  king  precedes  the  title.  That  this  order  is  a  proof 
of  lateness  in  Daniel  is  affirmed  in  the  words:  "So 
often  in  post-exilic  writings,  the  older  Hebrew  has 
nearly  always  the  order  (Yft)  I^Bn,  "the  king 
David."  188  The  following  tables  will  give  the  num- 
ber of  times  the  orders  "the  king  X"  and  "X  the 
king"  are  used  in  the  books  written  before  or  after 
550  B.  C. 

"°  See  examples  in  Noldeke,  Syriac  Grammar,  §  237. 

161  n«D  is  used  three  times  in  the  Sachau  Papyrus,  but  always 
as  a  noun  in  the  sense  of  the  Roman  "century,"  or  company  of  a 
hundred  men 

162  Siegfried  u.  Strack,  Neuhebr'dische  Grammatik,  §  73. 




Before  550  B.  C.  After  550  B.  C, 

The  king  X    X  the  king  The  king  X    X  the  king 

1  Sam.  Ill  Chron.          4  9 

2  Sam.  10  2  2  Chron         15  9 

1  Kings  29  2  Ezra  2               2 

2  Kings  14  2  Neh  02 
Isaiah  6  0  Hag.  0               2 
Jeremiah  10  2  Zech  0                1 
Ezekiel  1  0  Est  90 

—  —  Dan.  0  2 

Total          61  9  —  — 

Total          30  27 

Since  12  of  the  citations  from  Chronicles  are  in 
parallel  passages  in  Samuel-Kings,  the  30  instances 
of  the  phrase  "the  king  X"  in  the  later  writings  may 
be  reduced  to  18;  so  that  the  proportion  will  be: 
"The  king  X"  61  to  18,  "X  the  king"  9  to  27.  The 
evidence,  therefore,  that  the  order  "X  the  king"  is 
often  used  in  post-exilic  writings  and  that  the  order 
"the  king  X"  is  "nearly  always  used  in  the  older 
Hebrew"  amounts  to  a  mathematical  demonstration. 
But  a  demonstration  of  what?  Why,  of  the  minute 
historical  accuracy  of  Daniel,  Haggai,  Zechariah, 
Chronicles,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  and  of  the  unassail- 
able character  of  the  sacred  scriptures.  For  mark 
you,  the  early  writings  before  550  B.  C.  follow  the 
Egyptian  order  "the  king  X,"  m  and  the  later  writ- 
ings follow  the  Babylonian  and  Persian  order  "X  the 

164  See  the  scores  of  examples  in  my  article  on  "The  Titles  of 
Kings  in  Antiquity"  in  the  PTR  for  October,  1904,  and  Jan- 
uary, 1905. 



king."  165  In  Hag  i  1,  IS,  Zech.  vii  1,  Ezra  vii.  7, 
viii.  1,  Neh.  h.  1,  v.  14,  and  Dan  i.  21,  viii.  1,  we 
have  exact  copies  of  the  Persian  and  Babylonian 

Again,  it  is  a  matter  of  wonder  that  the  author  of 
the  "Literature  of  the  Old  Testament"  should  have 
used  this  particular  testimony  to  prove  that  Daniel 
did  not  resemble  Haggai  and  Zechanah  but  was  "sub- 
sequent to  Nehemiah";  for  the  books  of  Haggai, 
Zechariah,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  all  use  the  exact 
phrase  which  is  produced  as  evidence  that  Daniel  is 
later  than  they.  Besides,  the  critics  have  not  pro- 
duced a  single  example  from  the  Hebrew  literature 
which  they  place  in  the  age  subsequent  to  Nehemiah 
to  show  that  the  form  "X  the  king"  was  used  by  the 
Jews  subsequently  to  Nehemiah.  Neither  Ben  Sira 
nor  the  Zadokite  Fragments  have  it;106  nor  does  it 
occur  in  Isaiah  xxiv-xxvii,  Jonah,  Joel,  Ecclesiastes, 
nor  in  any  of  the  psalms,  nor  in  the  book  of  Proverbs. 
Nor  in  this  case  can  the  critics  resort  to  the  subter- 
fuge of  asserting  that  Daniel  is  late  because  the  pas- 
sages in  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  in  which  the  phrase 
occurs  are  insertions  into  the  genuine  works  of  Nehe- 
miah; for  unfortunately  for  them,  the  phrase  in  every 

ie5See  the  numerous  examples  given  in  the  articles  just  re- 
ferred to.  For  the  Persian  Kings  cf.  especially  my  articles  in  the 
Sachau  Denkschnft  (Berlin  1912)  and  the  PTR  for  January,  1917. 

166  The  nearest  to  it  is  the  phrase  "Nebuchadnezzar  the  king1 
of  Babylon"  in  the  Zadokite  Fragments,  pp.  1,  6, 



case  appears  in  the  parts  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  which 
they  themselves  admit  to  be  genuine.167 

Reader,  if  the  most  plausible,  and  probably  the 
most  scholarly,  of  all  that  school  of  modern  critics 
that  delight  to  assail  the  integrity  of  the  scriptural 
narratives  and  to  use  so  frequently  the  modest  appella- 
tion, "all  scholars  are  agreed,"  will  make  such 
palpable  blunders  in  a  matter  as  to  which  there  is 
abundant  evidence  to  show  that  the  Scriptures  are 
right,  what  dependence  will  you  place  on  him  when 
he  steps  beyond  the  bounds  of  knowledge  into  the 
dim  regions  of  conjecture  and  fancy?  If,  when  we 
can  get  abundant  evidence,  the  documents  of  the  Bible 
stand  the  test  of  genuineness  and  veracity,  and  the 
charges  of  the  critics  are  proven  false,  upon  what 
ground  of  common  sense  or  law  of  evidence,  are  we 
to  be  induced  to  believe  that  these  documents  are  false 
or  forged  when  charges  absolutely  unsupported  by 
evidence  are  made  against  them? 


One  more  charge  of  the  critics  in  the  sphere  of 
syntax  will  be  considered  because  it  covers  several 

167  Thus  Ezra  viL  7,  viii.  1  are  in  the  so-called  second  section 
of  Ezra  embracing  chapters  vii-x  as  to  which  Dr.  Driver  says- 
"There  is  no  reason  to  doubt"  that  it  "is  throughout  either  writ- 
ten by  Ezra  or  based  upon  materials  left  by  him?'  (I<OT,  549). 
The  phrase  occurs  in  Neh.  11  1,  v.  14.  Dr.  Driver  says  "Neh 
i.  1-vii.  73a  is  an  excerpt  to  all  appearances  unaltered,  from  the 
memoirs  of  Nehemiah"  (LOT,  550). 



books  and  because  it  is  reiterated  in  LOT.168  It  is 
that  Daniel's  and  the  Chronicler's  use  of  the  infinitive 
with  the  prepositions  b  "in"  and  k  "as"  indicates  a 
date  subsequent  to  Nehemiah.  Two  specifications 
are  made;  first,  that  this  type  of  sentence  is  rare  in 
the  earlier  books,  and  secondly,  that  the  earlier  books 
place  the  infinitive  clause  later  in  the  sentence.  Two 
witnesses  only  need  to  be  called  to  answer  these  asser- 
tions. First,  Ezekiel.  He  wrote  between  592  and 
570  B.  C.169  and  his  prophecies  were  "arranged  evi- 
dently by  his  own  hands/'  17°  His  book  is  the  one 
document  of  the  Old  Testament  that  the  critics  accept 
in  its  entirety,  their  theories  being  built  largely  upon 
it.  Now,  in  this  book  there  are  49  instances  where 
b  alone  is  used  with  the  infinitive  in  the  early  part 
of  the  sentence,  just  as  in  Daniel  and  Chronicles,  let 
alone  those  where  k  is  used.171  Since  Ezekiel  was 
written  before  570  B.  C.,  thirty-five  years  before 
we  claim  that  Daniel  was  written,  why  is  the  use  of 
the  phrase  seven  times172  by  Daniel  a  sign  of  a  date 
subsequent  to  Nehemiah  440  B.  C.  ?  The  second  wit- 

168  E.g.  pp.  506,  538. 

"9  LOT,  278. 

"ojtf.  296. 

"i  To  wit,  i.  172,  18,  192,  21«,  24,  25,  iii  18,  20,  27,  v.  16,  x. 
162,  172,  xii.  15,  xv.  5,  xvi.  34,  xnii.  24,  26,  xx  312,  xxi  34, 
xxiii.  37,  xxiv  24,  xxvi.  15,  19,  27,  33,  xxviii.  25,  xxix  7,  xxxii. 
15,  xxxiii.  8,  13,  14,  18,  19,  33,  xxxviii.  14,  xlii.  14,  xhiL  8,  xliv. 
19,  xlvi.  102,  xl™.  3,  7. 

172  To  wit,  viii.  8,  23,  x.  9,  XL  4  and  xii.  7. 



ness  we  shall  call  is  Ben  Sira,  who  wrote  about  180 
B.  C,  just  about  sixteen  years  before  the  month  of 
June  164  B.  C.,  when  some  critics  assume  that  Daniel 
was  written.  In  the  62  pages  of  the  Hebrew  as  it  is 
found  in  Smend's  edition  (57  in  Strack's)  we  have 
but  six  sure  examples  of  this  usage,  as  compared 
with  seven  in  the  10  pages  of  the  Hebrew  of  Daniel, 
and  forty-nine  in  the  85  pages  of  EzekieL  That  is, 
Ben  Sira  has  about  10  per  cent  of  one  example  per 
page  as  against  60  for  Ezekiel  and  70  for  Daniel.173 

173  These  two  witnesses  should  be  sufficient  to  convince  anyone 
that  the  charges  in  LOT  about  the  infinitive  with  k  and  b  are  false. 
However,  if  anyone  is  yet  unconvinced,  I  have  made  a  complete 
concordance  of  all  the  examples  of  the  use  of  the  infinitive  with 
b  and  k  that  are  found  in  the  Old  Testament.  There  are  more 
than  400  with  b  and  250  with  k. 





EA.VING  the  region  of  what  we  call  grammar, 
and  coming  into  the  sphere  of  rhetoric,  we  find 
that  the  critics  of  the  Old  Testament  are  in  the 
habit  of  determining  the  date  of  documents  and  the 
sources  and  divisions  and  evolutions  of  literary  works 
on  the  basis  of  diction,  style,  ideas,  and  aim.  To  this 
method  no  objection  can  justly  be  made,  provided  that 
we  put  the  four  items  together  and  do  not  divorce  them 
as  is  too  often  done.  Besides,  we  must  place  them  in 
the  proper  logical  order  of  aim,  ideas,  style,  and  dic- 
tion. For  it  is  manifest  that  an  author's  aim  or  pur- 
pose in  writing  a  given  document  will  determine  for 
him  the  ideas,  reasons,  and  illustrations,  which  he 
uses  to  attain  his  purpose.  It  is  no  less  evident  that 
his  style  and  diction  will  be  influenced  largely  by  the 
aim  and  ideas.  In  criticizing  a  literary  work,  there- 
fore, the  aim  of  the  writer  is  to  be  considered  first  of 
all;  then,  the  ideas,  or  reasons  that  he  gives  to  reach 
his  aim;  and  lastly,  the  method,  style,  and  diction 
which  he  uses.  When  the  author  clearly  announces 
his  purpose  as  Thucydides  does  in  his  History,  or 
Luke  in  his  Gospel,  or  Milton  in  Paradise  Lost,  we 
are  relieved  of  the  labor  of  discovering  this  purpose 
for  ourselves  and  are  left  free  to  discuss  the  method, 



reasons,  and  illustrations  by  which  he  attempts  to  f  ul- 
fil  his  purpose;  and  also,  the  style,  the  diction  and 
phraseology,  which  he  employs. 

This  long  excursus  has  been  deemed  necessary  be- 
cause in  the  literary  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament 
the  discussion  has  too  often  become  confined  to  one 
or  the  other  of  the  above  points,  instead  of  consider- 
ing them  all  together;  and  especially  because  it  is 
frequently  argued  that  a  difference  of  style  and  dic- 
tion implies  a  difference  of  authorship  and  date, 
whereas  it  may  imply  simply  a  difference  of  aim  and 
ideas.  The  diction  and  style  of  some  of  Milton's 
poerns  and  letters  and  of  his  Christian  Doctrine  are 
so  different  from  those  of  Paradise  Lost  and  the 
Areopagitica,  that,  if  his  aim  is  left  out  of  considera- 
tion, we  might  infer  a  difference  of  authorship.  Walt 
Whitman  and  Longfellow  differ  so  much  in  style  that 
we  might  infer  a  different  age.  In  doing  so,  we 
would  be  following  the  method  of  the  destructive 
literary  critics  of  the  Old  Testament  For,  as  we 
shall  proceed  to  show,  they  often  infer  a  difference 
of  authorship  or  age,  from  a  difference  of  diction  or 
style,  without  due  consideration  of  the  fact  that  these 
differences  may  be  due  to  difference  of  aim  and  ideas. 
In  confirmation  of  this  statement,  attention  is  called 
to  the  long  list  of  words  and  phrases  given  in  LOT  m 
to  show  that  the  Pentateuch  was  written  by  many  dif- 

»*  Pp.  99-102,  131-135. 



ferent  authors  and  at  many  different  times;  and  to 
the  lists176  given  to  show  that  Jonah,  Daniel,  and 
Chronicles  were  written  at  a  much  later  date  than  the 
apparent  aim  of  the  books  would  imply,  or  the  ideas 

Before  leaving  generalities  and  coming  to  particu- 
lars, it  may  be  well  to  make  a  few  remarks  about  the 
aims  and  ideas  of  a  literary  work.  First,  as  to  aim, 
it  must  be  kept  in  mind  that  an  author  may  have  a 
general  aim  including  his  whole  work  and  a  partic- 
ular aim  for  each  part  of  the  general  work;  just  as 
in  an  army  the  purpose  of  the  whole  is  to  defeat  the 
enemy  and  the  general  staff  makes  out  a  plan  of  cam- 
paign and  coordinates  all  the  parts  of  the  service  to 
this  end,  while  each  branch  of  the  service,  infantry, 
artillery,  aeroplane,  engineers,  and  commissary,  has 
its  particular  staff  and  purpose.  Thus,  the  main  pur- 
pose of  Milton's  works  was  to  maintain  the  sover- 
eignty of  God  and  the  liberty  of  man;  "to  justify 
the  ways  of  God  to  man,"  and  to  defend  "the  liberty 
to  know,  to  utter,  and  to  argue  freely,  according  to 

So  the  purpose  of  the  Old  Testament  is  to  teach 
the  uniqueness,  sovereignty,  justice  and  holiness  of 
God,  his  gracious  intention  to  redeem  mankind,  and 
the  holiness  of  his  people  to  be  attained  through  faith 
and  obedience,  repentance,  atonement,  and  love;  and 

i«  LOT,  322,  506-7,  535-540 



the  aim  of  every  part  of  the  Old  Testament  is  to  sub- 
serve the  purpose  of  the  whole.  Keeping  this  great 
purpose  in  view,  we  can  see  how  every  part  of  every 
book  conduces  to  the  purpose  of  the  whole;  and  how 
the  different  ideas  of  the  prophets  and  historians  and 
poets  and  wise  men,  expressed  in  various  styles  and 
dictions,  all  illumine  and  concenter  to  the  attainment 
of  the  one  great  end. 

Secondly,  let  it  be  remembered  that  while  the  pur- 
pose of  every  part  of  a  work  should  conduce  to  the 
purpose  of  the  whole,  it  is  not  true  that  the  special 
purpose  of  every  part  should  be  the  same  as  that  of 
every  other  part.  Paradise  Lost  has  a  different  pur- 
pose from  the  Areopagitica;  The  Christian  Doctrine 
from  The  State  Papers;  the  sonnets  on  the 
Waldenses  and  on  his  own  blindness  from  those  on 
Cromwell  and  on  those 

That  bawl  for  freedom  in  their  senseless  mood, 
And  still  revolt  when  truth  would  set  them  free. 

So,  also,  in  the  books  of  Scripture,  the  purpose  of  the 
Psalter  is  to  afford  us  a  book  of  prayers  and 
praises;178  but  each  psalm  has  a  special  purpose  of 
its  own,  and  that  purpose  is  attained  by  an  appro- 
priate array  of  ideas  clothed  in  a  suitable  style  and 
verbiage.  I/ike  the  gardens  of  Versailles,  the  general 
plan  is  one,  but  the  plans  of  the  different  beds  are 
many  and  the  gorgeous  effect  of  the  whole  is  pro- 

175  In   the    Mishna,   the    Psalter    is   called   teMhm,    "Praises" 
(comp.  Psa.  72:20). 



duced  by  the  harmonious  arrangement  of  the  various 
flowers,  the  mingling  and  blending  of  the  colors,  the 
contrasts  of  light  and  shadow,  the  long  allees,  the 
pendant  branches  of  the  trees,  the  fountains  and 
statues,  the  palaces  of  man  and  the  atmosphere  and 
vaulted  heavens  and  glaring  sun, 

Thirdly,  the  ideas  and  reasons  given  to  attain  the 
end  in  view  will  be  as  varied  as  the  imagination  of 
the  author  can  suggest  This  seems  so  obvious  that 
it  will  surprise  some  of  our  readers  to  know  that 
critics  actually  allege  against  the  genuineness  of  parts 
of  the  Bible  that  they  contain  new  ideas  and  reveal  a 
tone  different  from  what  we  find  elsewhere  in  the 
author's  works.  Thus :  "modern  critics  agree  gener- 
ally in  the  opinion  that  this  prophecy  [i.  e.,  Is.  xxiv- 
xxvii]  is  not  Isaiah's;  and  chiefly  for  the  following 
reasons:  L  It  lacks  a  suitable  occasion  in  Isaiah's 
age" — a  reason  which  means  simply  that  the  critics 
know  of  none.  2.  "The  literary  treatment  is  in  many 
respects  unlike  Isaiah's."  3.  "There  are  features  in 
the  representation  and  contents  of  the  prophecy  which 
seem  to  spring  out  of  a  different  (and  later)  vein  of 
thought  from  Isaiah's."  17T  So,  also,  Micah  vi,  vii 
are  assigned  to  a  different  author  from  chs.  i-v  be- 
cause they  are  said  to  have  "a  different  tone  and  man- 
ner," and  because,  as  Kuenen  remarks,  "the  author 
does  not  carry  on,  or  develop  lines  of  thought  con- 

,  219,  220. 



tained  in  chs.  i-v.178  Parts  of  Zephaniah  are  doubted 
because  they  are  thought  to  express  the  ideas  and 
hopes  of  a  later  age/' 179  Several  passages  in  Hosea 
are  held  to  be  a  later  addition  because  they  are 
"thought  to  express  ideas  alien  to  Hosea's  historical 
or  theological  position/'  18°  Now,  these  and  all  such 
opinions  are  absolutely  worthless  as  evidence.  In 
fact  they  are  not  evidence  at  all  in  a  legal  or  scientific 
sense;  for  they  have  in  their  favor  no  reasons  result- 
ing from  investigations.  For  the  fifty-five  years  of 
Manasseh  in  whose  reign  Ewald  would  place  Micah 
vi,  vii  we  have  a  record  of  but  eighteen  verses.  For 
the  life  and  circumstances  of  Isaiah,  we  have  but  a 
few  chapters  in  Kings.  Of  Hosea's  life  we  know 
only  what  he  tells  us  and  of  Zephaniah's  we  know 
nothing,  except  that  he  lived  "in  the  days  of  Josiah 
the  son  of  Ammon  king  of  Judah."  181  And  so  for 
critics  who  deny  even  the  additional  information  sup- 
plied by  the  book  of  Chronicles  and  the  reliability  of 
the  headings  to  express  opinions  as  to  what  the 
prophets  may  have  thought  or  as  to  what  the  events 
and  circumstances  of  their  lives  may  have  been,  is 
simply  absurd.  It  is  not  even  as  good  as  hearsay  evi- 
dence. It  is  pure  imaginings  The  critic  who  puts  such 
opinions  forth  as  evidence  is  no  better  than  a  witness 

"« Id.  333. 
™  Id.  342. 
L  1. 



who  would  testify  that  an  accused  was  guilty  because 
of  his  race,  or  religion,  or  looks.  It  involves,  also, 
on  his  part  a  presumptuousness,  or  self-conceit,  which 
borders  on  megalomania,  a  disease  from  which 
Caesars  and  Kaisers  do  not  alone  suffer. 

The  reader  will  please  pardon  the  indefiniteness  of 
the  above  discussion  Witnesses  we  can  cross-ex- 
amine, documents  we  can  investigate;  but  when  a 
critic,  or  alleged  expert,  gives  opinions  based  on 
opinions  and  not  on  reasons  derived  from  experiments 
and  investigation  of  objective  facts,  we  can  only  have 
him  ruled  out  of  court,  and  request  the  judge  to 
quash  the  indictment.  Leaving,  therefore,  these 
aerial  heights  of  speculation,  in  which  one  man  is  as 
much  of  an  expert  as  another,  or  in  his  own  estima- 
tion a  little  better,  let  us  come  down  to  the  objective, 
obvious  facts  of  earth  and  let  us  consider  and  test  the 
testimony  of  the  documents  involved  in  the  words 
and  phrases  contained  in  them. 


We  are  prepared  to  maintain  that  a  large  part  of 
the  words  that  are  produced  as  evidence  of  the  late 
date  of  documents  containing  them  cannot  them- 
selves be  proved  to  be  late.  For,  first,  no  one  can 
maintain  that  because  a  word  occurs  only  in  a  late 
document  the  word  itself  is  therefore  late;182  for  in 

182  See  the  discussion  and  proof  of  this  statement  in  "Studies  in 
the  Book  of  Darnel,"  p.  320f. 



this  case,  if  a  late  document  was  the  only  survival  of 
a  once  numerous  body  of  literature,  every  word  in  it 
would  be  late;  which  is  absurd.  Nor,  secondly,  can 
one  maintain  that  a  document  is  late  merely  because 
it  contains  words  which  do  not  occur  in  earlier  ones, 
which  are  known  to  us.  Every  new  find  of  Egyptian 
Aramaic  papyri  gives  us  words  not  known  before 
except,  if  at  all,  in  documents  written  hundreds  of 
years  later.  Nor,  thirdly,  is  a  word  to  be  considered 
as  evidence  of  the  lateness  of  a  document  in  which 
it  occurs  simply  because  it  occurs  again  in  documents 
known  to  be  late,  such  as  the  Hebrew  parts  of  the 
Talmud.  And  yet,  this  is  frequently  affirmed  by  the 
critics.  Thus  LOT  mentions  about  twenty  of  such 
words  to  prove  that  Daniel  and  Jonah  are  later  by 
centuries  than  the  times  of  which  they  treat.183  In 
this  Dr.  Driver  was  simply  following  in  the  footsteps 
of  the  German  scholars  who  preceded  him.  It  may 
be  considered  a  sufficient  answer  to  such  alleged 
proofs  to  affirm  (what  anyone  with  a  Hebrew  con- 
cordance can  confirm  for  himself)  that  Daniel,  Jonah, 
Joel,  and  the  Psalter,  and  other  documents  of  the  Old 
Testament  have  no  larger  percentage  of  such  words 
than  those  which  the  critics  assign  to  an  early  date, 
and  that  Is.  xxiv-xxvii  and  Psalm  Ixxxix,  which  they 
consider  to  be  among  the  latest  parts  of  their  respec- 
tive books  are  distinguished  from  most  of  the  other 

322,  504-8. 



parts  of  the  Old  Testament  by  having  no  such  words 
at  all.  Finally,  it  is  obvious  that  a  kind  of  proof  that 
will  prove  almost  everything  to  be  late,  and  especially 
the  parts  considered  late  to  be  early,  is  absurd  and  in- 
admissible as  evidence  in  a  case  designed  to  prove  that 
some  documents  are  later  than  others  because  they 
contain  words  of  this  kind.  For  it  is  certain  that  if 
all  are  late,  then  none  are  early — a  conclusion  which 
would  overthrow  the  position  of  all  critics,  radical  as 
well  as  conservative;  and  since  this  conclusion  is  de- 
sired and  maintained  by  none,  it  must  be  dismissed  as 

In  proof,  however,  that  such  words  are  found  in 
every  book,  and  in  almost  every  part  of  every  book, 
of  the  Old  Testament  we  subjoin  the  following  tables. 
These  tables  are  based:  on  special  concordances  of  every 
book  and  of  every  part  of  every  book  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, prepared  by  and  now  in  the  possession  of  the 
writer  of  this  article.  In  accordance  with  the  laws  of 
evidence,  that  "witnesses  must  give  evidence  of  facts," 
that  "an  expert  may  state  general  facts  which  are  the 
result  of  scientific  knowledge,  and  that  an  expert  may 
give  an  account  of  experiments  [hence,  also,  of  in- 
vestigations] performed  by  him  for  the  purpose  of 
forming  his  opinion," 1M  it  may  add  force  and  clear- 
ness to  the  evidence  about  to  be  presented,  if  an 
account  is  first  given  of  the  way  in  which  the  facts 

1M  Stephen,  The  Law  of  Evidence,  pp.  100,  103,  111 


upon  which  the  tables  are  based  were  collected.  One 
whole  summer  was  spent  in  gathering  from  a  Hebrew 
concordance  all  the  words  in  the  Old  Testament  that 
occur  there  five  times  or  less,  giving  also  the  places 
where  the  words  occur.  A  second  summer  sufficed 
for  making  from  this  general  concordance  a  special 
concordance  for  each  book.  In  the  third  summer, 
special  concordances  were  made  for  J,  E,  D,  H,  and 
P,  for  each  of  the  five  books  of  the  Psalter  and  for 
each  of  the  psalms;  for  each  of  the  parts  of  Proverbs, 
and  of  the  alleged  parts  of  Isaiah,  Micah,  Zechariah, 
Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah;  and  for  such  parts  as 
Gen.  xiv  and  the  poems  contained  in  Gen.  xlix,  Ex. 
xv,  Deut.  xxxii,  xxxiii  and  Judges  v.  Then,  each  of 
the  words  of  this  kind  was  sought  for  in  the  Aramaic 
and  in  the  Hebrew  of  the  post-biblical  Jewish  writers. 
The  evidence  of  the  facts  collected  is  manifest,  and 
we  think,  conclusive, 

A  study  of  these  percentages  should  convince  every- 
one that  the  presence  of  such  words  in  a  document  is 
no  proof  of  its  relative  lateness,185 

185  In  explanation  of  these  tables  it  may  be  said  that  they  are 
prepared  with  special  reference  to  the  critical  analysis  of  the 
O.  T.  Thus  the  Pentateuch  is  arranged  according  to  the  docu- 
ments, J,  E,  D,  H  and  P;  and  the  Proverbs  are  divided  into 
seven  portions  (following  LOT).  The  first  column  of  the  tables 
gives  for  each  book  or  part  of  a  book  the  number  of  words  oc- 
curring five  times  or  less  in  the  Old  Testament  that  are  found 
in  it;  and  the  second  column  the  percentage  of  these  words  that 
are  to  be  found  in  the  same  sense  in  the  Hebrew  of  the  Talmud 




of  words 


of  words 



i     "    " 

nO  T 

of  these 

inO  T. 

of  these 









or  less 


or  less 


Psalms  Ixxix 



Book  IV                61 


Prov    xxxi    1-9 



Book  V                118 


Isaiah  xxiv-xxvii 



Micah  iii                15 





Prov.  x-xxii   16      80 


Isaiah  xxxvi-ix 



Proverbs  xxil  17- 




xxiv                     30 





Sam.-Kings           356 


Ezra  i-vi 



Habakkuk               34 


Micah  ii 



Joel                        28 


Isaiah  xxxiv-v 



Jonah                       15 


Isaiah  xm-xiv 



Hosea                     65 


Isaiah  (1st  pt.) 



Jehovist  (J)           162 





Zephaniah               31 





Amos                      50 





Elohist  (E)           119 





Prov.  xxxi    10-31     6 


Ezra  vii-x 



Holiness  Code 

Zechariah  ii 



(H)                    48 


Isaiah  xl-lxvi 



Chronicles             144 


Proverbs  i-ix 



Prov.  xxv-xxix      52 





Esther                     57 


Zecharia  i 



Priest  Code  (P)  192 


Zecharia  iii 




Micah  i 



(D)                   154 





Proverbs  xxx         15 





Song  of  Songs      99 





Nehemiah                48 


Book  I 



Ecclesiastes            77 


Book  II 



Memoirs  of  Nehe- 

Book  III 



miah                    27 


A  careful  reading  of  this  table  will  justify  the  state- 
ment made  above  that  a  "kind  of  proof  that  will  prove 
almost  everything  to  be  late,  and  especially  the  parts 
considered  late  to  be  early,  is  absurd  and  inadmissible 



as  evidence  in  a  case  designed  to  prove  that  some  docu- 
ments are  later  than  others  because  they  contain  words 
of  this  kind/'  This  kind  of  evidence  would  simply 
prove  almost  all  the  documents  of  the  Old  Testament 
to  be  late.  If  admitted  as  valid,  it  would  militate  as 
much  against  the  views  of  the  radicals  as  it  would 
against  those  of  the  conservatives. 

Take,  for  example,  the  number  of  these  words  oc- 
curring in  the  alleged  documents  of  the  Pentateuch. 
J  and  E  together  have  281  words  in  about  2,170  verses 
(one  in  less  than  every  7  7/10  verses)  and  about  46 
per  cent  of  these  words  are  found  in  the  Talmud;  D 
has  154  words  in  about  1,000  verses  (or  one  in  every 
6  5/10  verses)  and  about  53  per  cent  of  them  in  the 
Talmud,  and  PH  201  words  in  2,340  verses  (or  one 
in  every  8  6/10  verses)  and  about  52  per  cent  of  the 
words  in  the  Talmud.  Surely,  no  unbiased  judge  of 
literature  would  attempt  to  settle  the  dates  of  docu- 
ments on  such  slight  variations  as  these  from  one 
word  in  6  5/10  to  one  in  8  6/10  and  from  46  to  53 
per  cent  in  the  Talmud !  Besides,  in  regard  to  the  rela- 
tive proportion  in  verses  the  order  is  PH,  JE,  D  and 
in  percentages  in  the  Talmud  JE,  PH,  D;  but  accord- 
ing to  the  Wellhausians,  it  should  in  both  cases  be  JE, 
D,  PH.  The  slight  variations  in  both  cases  point  to 
unity  of  authorship  and  likeness  of  date. 

Take  another  example  from  Micah.  Micah  I-III 
was  written,  according  to  some  critics,  about  700 
B.  C.;  IV,  V  about  550  B.  C.;  and  VI,  VII  about 



650  B.  C.  Yet  the  first  part  has  22  words  with  about 
32  per  cent  in  the  Talmud ;  the  second  part  1 1  words 
with  18  per  cent  in  the  Talmud;  and  the  third  part  15 
words  with  33  per  cent  in  the  Talmud.  The  latest 
part  has  the  fewest  words  and  the  smallest  per  cent. 

In  the  parts  of  Isaiah  ascribed  by  the  critics  to  Isa- 
iah there  are  121  words  occurring  five  times  or  under 
in  the  Old  Testament  of  which  22.3  per  cent  are  found 
also  in  the  Talmud;  whereas,  in  the  parts  ascribed  to 
the  exile  or  later  there  are  84  words  of  which  23  8  per 
cent  are  found  in  the  Talmud.  Chapters  24-27  have  no 
such  words,  but  are  the  latest  of  all  according  to  most 
of  the  radical  critics. 

Chronicles  has  144  of  these  words;  but  68  occur 
in  the  parts  not  parallel  with  Kings,  and  84  in  the  par- 
allel parts.  (The  seeming  discrepancy  in  the  numbers 
here  is  because  four  of  the  words  occur  in  both  parts 
of  Chronicles.)  As  there  are  about  950  verses  in  the 
original  part  and  only  about  700  verses  in  the  parallel 
portions,  it  will  be  seen  that  in  the  original  parts  of 
Chronicles  there  is  one  of  these  words  in  about  every 
fourteen  verses  and  in  the  parallel  parts  in  every  eight. 

It  is  incumbent  in  those  who  make  use  of  this  al- 
leged evidence  from  New  Hebrew  words,  to  show, 
also,  how  Malachi,  the  latest  of  the  prophets,  has  only 
23.1  per  cent  of  words  of  this  kind  occurring  in  the 
Talmud;  whereas,  Hosea  has  41.5  and  Amos  46,  Joel 
39.3  and  Jonah  40.  Also,  while  they  are  at  it,  will 
they  please  show  how  Chapter  xxx.  1-9  of  Proverbs 



has  none  of  these  words,  although  they  all  place  it 
among  the  post-exilic  literature. 

The  extraordinary  number  of  words  occurring  only 
in  Ecclesiastes  and  the  Song  of  Songs  is  no  indica- 
tion of  date  but  rather  of  authorship  and  subject. 
Solomon  being  the  wisest  man  of  his  time  and  a  poet, 
an  observer  of  nature  and  of  man,  would  like  Shake- 
speare, Milton,  and  Carlyle  have  a  vocabulary  much 
beyond  the  average.  Besides  the  subject  of  the  Song 
of  Songs  is  not  treated  elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  it  is  not  fair  to  take  the  use  of  words  in  an 
idyll  of  bucolic  love,  such  as  ointment,  washing, 
espousal,  powder,  kid,  roe  and  locks  of  hair,  as  an  in- 
dication of  date.  And  again  the  author  of  Ecclesi- 
astes, as  a  philosopher,  may  well  have  indulged  in  ab- 
stract terms;  and  as  a  moralist  who  better  than  Solo- 
mon may  have  spoken  of  youth,  and  poverty  and 
weariness  and  vanity. 

Of  the  16  words  of  this  kind  in  the  Memoirs  of 
Nehemiah,  six  are  found  in  works  admitted  by  the 
critics  to  antedate  550  B.  C.,  one  is  in  New  Aramaic 
but  not  in  New  Hebrew,  four  or  five  are  Babylonian, 
three  refer  to  the  walls  and  buildings  of  Nehemiah, 
and  one  to  the  genealogies.  The  only  one  left  is  found 
in  Daniel  also.  Thus  we  see  that  the  apparently  alarm- 
ing number  and  percentage  of  late  words  even  in  Ne- 
hemiah reduces  itself  to  a  matter  of  subject.  All  the 
words  suit  the  time  and  the  man,  and  his  deeds. 



The  small  number  of  these  words  in  Ezra  is  one  of 
the  most  noteworthy  facts  in  evidence.  Surely,  a  book 
written,  as  the  critics  allege,  at  about  300  B.  C.  (LOT 
540  f.)  should  have  had  a  large  number  of  these 
words !  But  not  one  word  is  found  in  the  two  docu- 
ments into  which  the  critics  divide  the  book.  Out  of 
the  14  words  m  Ezra  found  five  times  or  less  in  the 
Old  Testament,  7  are  certainly  and  two  probably  de- 
rived from  the  Persian  or  Babylonian,  one  ('ashem 
x.  19)  is  found  also  in  E  and  2  Sam.,  and  does  not 
occur  in  New  Hebrew;  the  root  of  Yesud  is  used  in 
all  ages  of  Hebrew  literature  and  besides  the  argu- 
ment depends  on  a  vowel  pointing,  and  again,  the  root 
is  used  in  Babylonian;  one  abeduth  ix.  8,  9  may  be 
Aramaic,  but  Ezra  wrote  about  half  his  book  in  the 
Aramaic  of  the  fifth  century;  one  rafad  x.  9  is  found 
in  Dan.  x.  11  and  Psa.  civ.  12  and  its  derivatives  in 
Exod.  xv.  15,  Isa.  xxxiii.  14,  Job  xli.  4,  and  Psa.  ii. 
11,  xlviii.  7,  Iv.  6;  and  the  last  mahalaf  may  be  con- 
nected with  the  Assyrian  word  meaning  an  instrument 
of  wood  or  stone  (Muss-Arnolt  p.  316)  or  with  the 
word  meaning  garment  or  harness  (id). 

We  conclude,  therefore,  that  this  appeal  of  the  crit- 
ics to  New  Hebrew  as  an  evidence  of  lateness  for  cer- 
tain documents  of  the  Old  Testament  is  unwarranted 
by  the  facts  in  evidence.  Tested  in  the  light  of 
present-day  dictionaries  and  concordances  of  the  He- 
brew and  cognate  languages,  it  shrinks  into  absurdity. 




Exception  is  to  be  taken  to  the  way  in  which  the 
critics  use  the  presence  of  Aramaisms  in  a  document 
as  a  proof  of  its  age;  and  also  to  their  habit  of  as- 
suming that  words  are  Aramaisms,  without  present- 
ing any  proof  in  favor  of  their  assumption.  Now, 
an  Aramaism  in  a  Hebrew  document  must  be  defined 
as  an  Aramaic  word  which  the  writer  of  the  Hebrew 
document  has  used  to  denote  a  thing,  or  to  express  a 
thought,  either  because  there  was  no  Hebrew  word 
that  he  could  equally  well  employ,  or  because  he  was 
himself  strongly  under  Aramaic  influence,  or  because 
he  wanted  to  show  off  his  acquaintance  with  foreign 
tongues;  just  as  recent  English  writers  use  hinter- 
land in  describing  the  part  of  Africa  lying  back  of 
the  coast,  or  as  Mr.  Rider  Haggard  uses  trek  and 
laager  in  his  novels  whose  scene  is  in  South  Africa; 
or  as  Carlyle  uses  many  German  words  and  phrases 
in  his  writings  and  even  copies  the  style  of  Jean  Paul 
Friedrich  Richter;  or  as  the  debaters  in  the  British 
Parliament  used  to  interlard  their  speeches,  or 
Montaigne  and  the  writers  in  the  Spectator  their 
essays,  with  Latin*  With  such  analogies  before 
them,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  the  commentators  of  the 
eighteenth  century  fell  into  the  habit  of  calling  every 
infrequent  word  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  whose  root  and 
form  are  common  in  Aramaic,  by  the  name  of 
Aramaism.  It  was  simply  their  naive  way  of  camou- 



flaging  their  ignorance  with  the  appearance  of  knowl- 
edge. If  they  had  said  merely  that  this  word  which 
occurs  only  here  in  the  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  found  frequently  in  Aramaic,  they  would  in 
most  cases  have  been  exactly  right  But  when  they 
inferred  that  because  it  was  frequent  in  Aramaic  and 
infrequent  in  Hebrew  it  was  of  Aramaic  origin  and 
a  loan-word  in  Hebrew,  they  indulged  in  a  non~ 
seqmtur,  as  we  shall  now  attempt  to  show. 

The  Consonantal  Changes. — In  the  Semitic  group 
of  languages  there  are  three  great  families,  which 
may  be  designated  as  the  Hebrew,  the  Arabic  and 
the  Aramaic.  In  these  great  families  the  radical 
sounds,  *  ,  h,  b,  m,  p,  g,  k,  q,  I,  n  and  r  are  usually 
written  uniformly  with  corresponding  signs,  i.  e., 
Hebrew  V  corresponds  to  Arabic  b,  and  both  to 
Aramaic  b,  and  h  (ch),  wy  and  y,  correspond  com- 
monly in  Hebrew  and  Aramaic.  In  preformatives 
and  sufformatives  Hebrew  h  is  *  in  the  others;  and 
in  sufformatives  Hebrew  m  is  n.  In  the  other  eight 
(or  nine,  counting  sin)  radical  sounds,  however,  cer- 
tain regular  changes  occur,  and  seem  to  differentiate 
the  three  families.  These  changes  may  be  illustrated 
by  the  following  table  which  is  based  upon  a  collec- 
tion of  all  the  roots  in  the  Hebrew  Old  Testament 
containing  one  or  more  of  these  eight  radicals  and 
upon  a  comparison  of  their  roots  in  Arabic  and 
Aramaic.  There  are  721  such  roots  in  Hebrew  which 
have  corresponding  roots  in  both  Arabic  and  Aramaic. 



The  numbers  to  the  right  show  how  often  each  cor- 
respondence is  found  in  the  roots  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Hebrew.186 








of  Roots 





of  Roots 




c*  •«*.  •**. 






















&     / 





54    ' 











These  three  families  have  obviously,  according  to 
the  above  table,  certain  laws  of  consonantal  change 
resembling  Grimm's  law  in  the  Indo-European  lan- 
guages. Thus,  when  a  Hebrew  root  has  the  radical 
consonant  sh  (s)  it  is  generally  s  in  Arabic;  and  in 
this  case  should  be  sh  in  Aramaic.  Sometimes,  how- 
ever, the  Hebrew  sh  corresponds  to  an  Arabic  th; 
and  in  this  case  the  Aramaic  is  t.  At  in  Hebrew 
would  be  represented  by  a  t  in  Arabic  and  by  a  t  in 

18«  For  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  s  =  D,  r  r=  y9  $  =  »,  sh  =  tr, 
^  =  H%  For  the  Arabic,  the  English  equivalents  as  given  in 
Wright's  Arabic  Grammar  have  been  used. 



Aramaic.  These  three  series  of  changes  are  all  com- 
mon or  regular  and  no  proof  of  borrowing  can  be 
derived  from  the  consonants  themselves  where  these 
series  exist.  If,  however,  we  have  t  in  Hebrew,  th 
in  Arabic  and  t  in  Aramaic,  the  Hebrew  word  would 
probably  be  derived  from  the  Aramaic,  since  the 
Hebrew  form  should  according  to  rule  have  sh.  Or, 
if  we  had  sh  in  Hebrew,  t  in  Arabic  and  t  in  Aramaic, 
the  Arabic  has  probably  been  derived  from  the 

Observing,  then,  the  exceptions  to  the  regular 
changes,  we  find  that  there  are  four  or  five  roots  or 
words  in  the  Old  Testament  Hebrew  that  may  pos- 
sibly have  been  derived  from  the  Aramaic,  to  wit, 
nadar,  "to  vow,"  athar,  "to  abound,"  tillel,  "to  cover" 
(Neh.  iii.  15),  beroth  (Cant  i.  17),  and  medibath 
(Lev.  xxvi.  26). 

1.  As  far  as  nadar,  "to  vow,"  is  concerned,  the 
fact  that  its  root  and  its  derivative  noun  for  "vow" 
are   found   in   Isaiah   twice,   Proverbs   three  times, 
Judges  four  times,  Samuel  seven  times,  eleven  times 
in  Deuteronomy,  and  sixty-four  times  elsewhere  in 
the  Old  Testament  Hebrew,  shows  that  if  this  irregu- 
larity indicates  an  Aramaic  origin,  it  indicates  also 
that  Aramaic  words  were  taken  over  into  Hebrew  as 
early  as  the  time  of  the  composition  of  Proverbs, 
Isaiah,  Deuteronomy  and  the  sources  of  Judges  and 

2.  Athar,   "to  abound,"   occurs  only  in  Proverbs 



and  one  derivative  in  Jen  xxxiii.  6,187  and  Ezekiel 
xxxv.  13. 

3.  Tillel  which  is  found  only  in  Neh.  iii.  15  is  ad- 
mitted to  be  to  all  appearances  an  Aramaism,    Since, 
according  to  the  critics,  it  is  in  the  Memoirs  of  Nehe- 
miah,  it  must  have  been  used  by  the  author  as  early 
as  the  fifth  century  B.  C.188 

4.  Beroth  for  the  more  usual  birosh,  "fir  tree," 
may  not  be  an  Aramaism,  but  a  peculiarity  of  the 
Hebrew  dialect  of  North  Israel,  where,  to  quote  Dr. 
Driver  (LOT,  449),  "there  is  reason  to  suppose  that 
the  language  spoken  differed  dialectically  from  that 
of  Judah,"  and   "approximated  to  the  neighboring 
dialect  of  Phoenicia."189190 

5.  As  to  the  medibath,  in  Lev.  xxvi.  16,  it  is  the 
wont  of  the  critics  to  assume  that  it  is  the  Hiphil  par- 

187  Prov.  27 : 6  is  in  the  part  of  Proverbs  which  Dr.  Driver 
considers  to  have  been  rightly  reputed  to  have  been  ancient  in 
Hezikiah's  age.  (LOT,  p  407)  The  35th  chapter  of  Ezekiel 
is  put  by  Dr.  Driver  at  about  586  B  C.  (LOT,  291,  262),  [and 
the  33d  of  Jeremiah  in  587  B.  C.  (LOT,  262)]. 

"SLOT,  542,  552 

189  The  best  discussions  of  the  characteristics  of  the  different 
Semitic  families  will  be  found  in  Wright's  Comparative  Grammar 
of  the  Semitic  Languages,    Zimmern,   Vergleichende  Grammatik 
der  Semitischen  Sprachen;    Brockelmann,  Grammatik  der  Scmi- 
tischen  Sprachen,   and  Driver,  in  an  appendix  to  his  work  On  the 
Tenses  in  Hebrew. 

190  Besides,  it  is  possible  there  may  have  been  two  words  of 
similar  but  different  meaning  m  Hebrew,  just  as  in  the  Babylonian 
burasu  and  berutu      If  we  take  Jensen's  meaning  of  "selected 
woods"  for  the  latter  the  meaning  of  the  last  clause  of  Cant  I.  17, 
would  be  "our  water  troughs  are  selected  woods." 



ticiple  of  a  verb  dub  which  occurs  in  Aramaic,  as  the 
equivalent  of  the  Hebrew  zub,  "to  flow."  In  our 
opinion,  however,  it  is  better  to  take  it  to  be  the 
Hiphil  participle  of  ddab,  "to  be  weak/'  and  for  the 
following  reasons: 

(1)  Zub  is  used  in  Z,ev.  xx.  24,  xxii.  4,  both  pas- 
sages as  well  as  xxvi.  16  belonging  to  what  the  critics 
call  the  Law  of  Holiness.    The  verb  and  its  deriva- 
tives are  found  also  in  P  thirty-four  or  more  times, 
in  Deuteronomy  six  times,  in  J  in  Ex.  iii.  8,  xiii.  5, 
in  E  in  Ex.  iii.  17,  and  in  JE  in  Ex.  xxxiii.  3.    Why 
should  the  writers  of  H,  or  the  various  later  redactors 
have  used  two  methods  of  spelling? 

(2)  Zub  is  used  of  the  flowing  of  various  issues 
and  of  milk  and  honey,  but  is  never  employed  with 
soul,  nor  in  any  but  a  physical  sense  except  perhaps 
in  Lam.  iv.  9;    but  even  there  it  probably  refers  to 
the  flowing  of  the  blood  of  the  slain. 

(3)  None  of  the  Aramaic  versions,  except  pos- 
sibly the  Syriac,  render  Lev.  xxvi.  16  as  if  they  con- 
sidered  the   participle   to   come    from   a   verb   "to 
flow."  191 

(4)  De'dbon  in  Deut  xxviii.  65  is  rendered  by 
Onkelos  and  Jonathan  as  well  as  in  the  Samaritan 
and   Syriac   by   words    showing   that   the   Hebrew 
scholars  who  made  these  versions   considered  the 

191  Onkelos  has  ftHUD,  Jonathan  WDD,  the  Samaritan  ]»WB,  the 
Peshitto  H3HQ.  In  this  word  which  is  of  infrequent  occurrence 
in  Syriac,  it  is  probable  that  the  «  has  been  changed  to  %  Com- 
pare Noldeke's  Syriac  Grammar,  §  33B. 

10  [145] 


Hebrew  word  in  Deut  xxviii.  65  to  have  the  same 
root  as  the  word  in  Lev.  xxvi.  16.192 

(5)  Da'ab  in  Jer.  xxxi.  12,  25,  is  rendered  in  the 
Targum  by  yescrf,  "to  be  vexed,"  and  a  derivative  in 
Job  xli.  14  by  de'abon. 

(6)  The  Aramaic  of  the  Talmud  confuses  the  two 
verbs  dub  and  de'db.™* 

(7)  The  Aleph  is  frequently  omitted  in  the  Hebrew 
and  Aramaic  forms  and  manuscripts.19* 

For  these  reasons  we  feel  justified  in  refusing  to 
admit  that  the  nedibath  of  Lev.  xxvi.  16  can  be  used 
as  proof  that  there  is  an  Aramaism  in  H.195  The  critics 
are  at  liberty  to  make  the  most  out  of  the  presence  of 
tillel,  "to  cover/' 186  in  the  memoirs  of  Nehemiah 
(Neh.  iii.  15),  which  was  written  at  a  time  when  the 
Jews  of  Elephantine,  Samaria,  Jerusalem,  Susa,  and 
Ecbatana,  all  used  the  Aramaic  as  the  language  of 
business  and  correspondence.  The  wonder  is  that 
there  should  be  only  one  sure  instance  of  an  Aramaism 
in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  to  be  proven  by  the  variations 
of  the  consonants  out  of  a  total  of  721  possibilities.197 

192Onkelos  and  Jonathan  have  the  same  as  Onkelos  in  I^v. 
xxvi.  15,  Samaritan  has  fiNOT  or  pn,  and  Syriac  has  tta'rt. 

188Dalman,  Aram-Neu-Heb.  Worterbuch,  p.  84. 

lwNdldeke,  Syriac  Grammar,  32,  33,  35;  Gesenius,  Hebrew 
Grammar,  §  7  g;  Siegfried,  Lehrbuch  der  neuheb.  Sprache,  §  14; 
Wright,  Comparative  Grammar,  pp.  44-47. 

"3ZATW.  L,  177-276. 

™*  Page  144. 

197  Out  of  the  352  words  treated  of  in  Katrtzch's  Die  Ara- 
maismen  im  Alien  Testament,  flTO  and  Wo  are  the  only  ones 
that  can  be  proven  by  the  phonetic  test 



The  Noun  Formations. — But  not  only  in  the  region 
of  consonantal  changes  does  the  attempt  of  the  critics 
to  prove  their  theories  as  to  Aramaisms  utterly  break 
down,  when  a  scientific  investigation  of  the  alleged 
evidence  is  made;  it  fails  as  certainly  in  the  attempt 
to  prove  them  by  an  appeal  to  the  evidence  of  the 
forms  of  the  words.  We  have  already  said  that  the 
noun  forms  ending  in  n™8  are  found  in  all  of  the 
Semitic  languages  at  all  stages  of  their  development 
and  that  the  forms  ending  with  uth  are  numerous  in 
Assyrian  and  Hebrew  as  well  as  in  Aramaic.199  The 
forms  in  uth  have  already  been  sufficiently  discussed 

The  Nouns  in  on  and  an* — As  to  the  forms  in  n, 
the  following  remarks  may  be  added  to  what  has 
been  said.201  Exclusive  of  proper  names,  about  one 
hundred  and  forty  nouns  ending  in  n  are  found  in 
Biblical  Hebrew.202  Sixty-three  of  these  are  met  with 
in  the  Pentateuch.  Of  the  sixty-three,  the  Targum 
of  Onkelos  renders  twelve  by  the  same  nouns  ending 

"8  Page  110. 

199  page  106. 

200  Pages  106-110. 

201  Page  110. 

202  The  lists  of  Thotmes  III  have  seventeen  nouns  ending  in  » 
out  of  119  all  told.    The  Sendscherli  Inscriptions  have  no  nouns 
in  n  but  the  Sachau  papyri  have  scores.    They  are  found  also  in 
the  Sabaean  and  Minean  Inscriptions  and  are  common  in  Arabic 
and  Syriac.    There  are  14  in  the  code  of  Hammurabi  alone  and 
26  in  the  Babylonian  of  the  Amarna  letters. 



in  n,  and  fifty-one  by  other  nouns,  most  of  them  not 
ending  in  n.  Onkelos,  however,  contains  sixty-three 
nouns  ending  in  n.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  where 
the  subject-matter  is  exactly  the  same,  the  Hebrew 
original  and  the  Aramaic  version  have  exactly  the 
same  number  of  words  ending  in  n.  Judging  from  this 
fact,  it  is  left  to  our  readers  to  determine,  if  they  can, 
whether  the  ending  n  is  more  characteristic  of 
Aramaic  than  of  Hebrew. 

Again,  in  the  case  of  the  twelve  words  out  of  the 
sixty-three  where  they  agree,  is  it  more  likely  that 
the  original  Hebrew  borrowed  from,  or  was  influenced 
by  the  Aramaic  version,  or  vice  versa,  especially  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  according  to  the  critics  them- 
selves, the  version  was  not  written  for  from  500  to 
1,000  years  after  the  original? 

As  might  be  inferred  from  the  example  of  the  usage 
of  words  with  the  ending  n  in  the  Pentateuch,  it  will 
be  found  that  in  the  best  specimens  of  Aramaic 
literature  the  number  of  nouns  with  this  ending 
varies  with  the  kind  of  literature.  Thus  in  Joshua 
the  Stylite,  we  find  that  in  the  first  four  chapters, 
where  the  dedication  occurs,  there  are  nineteen  words 
of  this  kind;  whereas  in  certain  chapters  of  the 
purely  narrative  parts,  such  as  xix,  Ixiv  and  Ixv,  no 
word  with  this  ending  is  found,  and  even  long 
chapters  like  xxi  and  xxii  have  but  one  each,  and  xxiii 
and  Ixvi  but  three  each.  In  Bar  Hebrseus,  also,  we 



find  but  two  nouns  of  this  kind  in  the  narrative  of 
the  crusaders'  first  conquest  of  Jerusalem,  one  of 
them  a  word  similar  to  one  found  in  the  Hebrew 
glosses  of  the  Tel-el- Amarna  Letters.208 

Notwithstanding  these  general  considerations  and 
this  common  use  of  nouns  with  the  ending  n  in 
Hebrew  documents,  the  critics  are  wont  to  argue  that 
certain  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  are  late  because 
they  contain  nouns  of  this  kind.  The  most  glaring 
example  of  the  argument  is  that  the  presence  of  a 
number  of  such  words  in  Ecclesiastes  is  due  to 
Aramaic  influence,  the  assumptions  being  made  that 
many  of  the  words  in  Ecclesiastes  with  this  ending 
are  Aramaisms,  and  that  the  mere  use  of  Armaisms 
indicates  a  late  date.  In  answer  to  these  assumptions 
three  statements  of  fact  and  evidence  may  be  made. 

1.  In  general,  it  may  be  said  that  the  number  of 
different  words  of  this  kind  in  Ecclesiastes  is  small 
compared  with  what  we  find  in  Aramaic  documents 
of  a  like  character.  For  in  twelve  chapters,  or  ten 
pages,  of  Ecclesiastes,  there  are  but  seventeen  words 
all  told  of  this  class,  whereas  in  the  first  four  pages 
of  Joshua  the  Stylite  there  are  nineteen.  Yet  in  the 
ten  pages  of  Joshua  the  Stylite  from  63  to  73  in- 
clusive, there  are  but  twelve  as  against  thirty-four 
in  the  first  ten  pages,  showing  that  the  number  of 

203 1  e.,  pin*.  Cp.  ahruna  in  the  letter  of  Biridiya  to  the  King 
of  Egypt  (Windder,  196,  line  10). 



such  words  varies  in  Aramaic  as  well  as  in  Hebrew  in 
accordance  with  the  subject  treated  of.  It  seems  clear 
that  the  relatively  large  number  of  these  words  in  n 
in  Ecclesiastes  as  compared  with  other  Old  Testa- 
ment books  is  due  to  the  character  of  the  subject- 
matter  rather  than  to  the  lateness  of  the  time  of 
composition.  Further,  it  is  a  noteworthy  fact,  not 
mentioned  by  the  critics,  that  of  the  140  words  in  the 
Old  Testament  ending  in  n,  only  26  are  found  in 
Syriac.  Of  these  26,  six  are  said  in  Brockelmann's 
Lexicon  to  have  been  derived  by  the  Syrians  from  the 
Hebrew,  and  eight  more  are  found  in  either  Baby- 
lonian or  Arabic,  or  both;  thus  reducing  to  twelve 
the  number  of  words  which  could  possibly  be  derived 
by  the  Hebrews  from  the  Syriac,  But — 

2.  Of  the  twelve  words  remaining,  seven  occur  in 
Ecclesiastes.  As  to  these,  the  following  facts  rule  out 
the  supposition  that  the  Hebrew  could  have  derived 
them  from  the  Aramaic : 

(1)  Not  one  of  them  is  found  in  any  Aramaic 
document  written  before  200  A.  D.    The  latest  date 
given  by  any  critic  for  Ecclesiastes  is  about  100  B.  C. 

(2)  Since  the  Aramaic  literature  in  which  any  of 
the  words   occur  was   written  by  Jews   who   had 
adopted  Aramaic,  it  is  more  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  the  Jewish  writers  of  Aramaic  documents  bor- 
rowed from  their  own  literary  and  native  language, 
than  that  early  Hebrew  writers  borrowed  from  the 



Aramaic.    At  least,  there  is  no  evidence  that  these 
words  existed  in  early  Aramaic.204 

(3)  The  forms  of  yuthron  and  husron  have  an  u  in 
the  first  syllable  in  Aramaic  and  an  i  in  Hebrew. 

(4)  Shilton,  it  is  true,  is  found  only  in  Ecclesiastes 
viii.  4,  8;   but  its  root  occurs  in  Babylonian  as  well 
as  in  Hebrew  and  Arabic,  and  the  form  occurs  in 
Arabic  as  well  as  Syriac. 

(5)  Kinyan  is  found  in  Onkelos  and  Syriac;  but 
in  Hebrew  it  occurs  in  Prov.  iv.  7  in  a  passage  which 
the  critics  put  among  the  earliest  parts  of  the  Old 
Testament.    Besides,  to  call  it  late  in  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage, we  would  have  to  prove  that  Gen.  xxxi.  18, 
xxxiv.  23,  xxxvi.  6,  Lev.  xxii.  11,  Jos.  xiv.  4  and 
Ezek.  xxxvni.  12,  13,  where  it  occurs  also,  are  late. 

(6)  Ra'yon  is  found  only  in  Eccles.  i.  17,  ii.  22,  iv. 
16,  but  it  is  singular  that,  if  it  meant  the  same  here 
as  in  Aramaic,  the  Syriac  version  should  render  it  by 
sibyan  in  ii.  22  and  by  turofo  in  i.  17  and  iv.  16  and 
the  Aramaic  Targum  in  all  these  cases  by  tebiruth. 

The  corresponding  word  in  Syriac  is  rendered  by 
Brockelmann  by  cogitatio,  fictio,  consilium  and 
voluntas;  in  Dalman  by  Gesmwmg,  Gedanke.  Must 
the  writer  of  Ecclesiastes  have  borrowed  the  Aramaic 

20*This  Jewish  Aramaic  literature  to  which  the  critics  appeal 
was  written  from  200  to  700  AD.  Of  course,  these  words  may 
have  existed  in  Aramaic  a  thousand  or  more  years  before  they 
were  written  in  any  document  we  now  possess ;  but  in  like  manner, 
they  may  have  existed  in  Hebrew  1,000  years  before  they  were 
written  in  any  document  now  known 



form  and  have  given  it  a  different  meaning?  Why 
not  rather  suppose  that  he  found  the  word  already 
in  Hebrew,  formed  regularly  from  the  good  old 
Hebrew  root  rafa,  as  pidyon  from  pada  and  gafyon 
from  ga'af 

(7)  Finally  kisron  is  the  worst  specimen  of  evi- 
dence of  all.  To  be  sure,  it  happens  that  in  the 
Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament  it  is  used  in  Ecclesi- 
astes  alone;  but  how  it  can  be  said  to  have  been  de- 
rived by  the  writer  from  the  Aramaic  passes  belief 
when  we  observe  that  the  word  has  not  been  found  in 
any  Aramaic  document  of  any  dialect  or  time.204a 

3.  Even  if  it  could  be  proven  that  certain  words  in 
a  Hebrew  document  had  been  derived  from  the 
Aramaic,  it  would  not  determine  the  date  of  the 
Hebrew  document;  because  the  latest  evidence  from 
the  extra-biblical  inscriptions,  as  well  as  the  Old 
Testament  itself,  goes  to  show  that  the  Hebrews  and 
Arameans  were  closely  associated  from  a  time  long 
precedent  to  that  at  which  the  critics  claim  that  the 
oldest  documents  of  the  Old  Testament  were  writ- 

20*a  On  the  other  hand,  the  form  kit-sir  in  the  sense  of  "success" 
is  found  in  Babylonian  of  the  tame  of  Abraham.  (See  Denne- 
f eld's  Babylonisch-Assyrische  Gebur ts-Omina )  The  root  is  not 
found  in  Aramaic  till  137  A.  D. 

205  Thus  the  Ahlcww,  a  tribe  of  Arameans,  are  mentioned  in 
one  of  the  Amarna  Letters  (Winckler,  291,  lines  6,  8) ;  and 
Nahanna,  the  Aramaic  form  of  Naharayim,,  occurs  in  Egyptian 
as  early  as  the  time  of  Thotmes  I  (Breasted,  Ancient  Records, 
II,  81.)  See  my  article  in  the  April  number  of  the  PTR  for 




Lastly,  when  we  leave  the  region  of  sounds  and 
forms  and  enter  that  of  sense  and  meaning,  we  find 
that  here  also  the  critics  make  assertions  with  regard 
to  the  derivation  and  borrowing  of  words  which  are 
demonstrably  contrary  to  the  facts.  In  cases  such  as 
^>I3  (tillel,  "covered,"  Neh.  iii.  15),  it  is  easy  to  show 
the  probability  that  the  word  is  an  Aramaism,  because 
the  proper  letter  for  the  first  radical  should  have  been 
£,  not  f,  if  the  word  had  the  probable  original  Hebrew 
form  of  writing  and  sound.  In  cases  such  as 
hithhdbberuth  (Dan.  xi.  23),  it  is  easy  to  suppose  an 
Aramaism,  because  the  form  is  common  in  Aramaic 
and  is  met  with  but  once  besides  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Hebrew.  But  when  we  come  to  words  which, 
have  no  indication  (indicia)  either  in  sound  or  form 
that  they  are  of  Aramaic  origin,  we  often  find  the 
critics  simply  asserting  as  a  fact  that  a  word  is  am 
Aramaism  without  producing  any  proofs  whatever 
to  support  the  assertion. 

Thus  DeWette-Schrader  *°*  speak  of  pashar,  fatal, 
tanaf  and  kotel  as  Aramaic,  and  a  proof  of  the  late 
date  of  Ecclesiastes  and  of  the  Song  of  Songs.  They 
give  no  proof  except  the  fact  that  the  words  are 
found  in  Aramaic.  The  evidence  from  this  fact  is 
nullified  by  the  discovery  that  all  four  words  are 
found  in  Babylonian,  and  all  but  the  last  one,  in 

™*Einleitung,  pp.  543,  561. 



Arabic  with  exactly  the  same  sound,  form,  and  mean- 
ing which  is  characteristic  of  the  Hebrew. 

Again,  Dr.  Driver  in  LOT  mentions  among  the 
words  in  Ecclesiastes  and  the  Song  of  Songs  "having 
usually  affinities  with  the  Aramaic  nine  that  are"  207 
found  with  appropriate  sound,  form  and  meaning,  in 
the  Babylonian  language  and  in  documents  long  ante- 
dating the  time  of  the  captivity.  Of  these  words,  sha 
is  not  found  in  any  pure  Aramaic  dialect,  is  the 
ordinary  relative  in  Babylonian  from  the  earliest  to 
the  latest  documents,  and  is  found  in  all  periods  of 
Hebrew  literature;208  and  'umman  (master-work- 
man) and  shalheveth  (flame)  are  so  distinctively 
Babylonian  in  form  and  sense  that  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  Aramaic  as  well  as  Hebrew  derived  them 
from  the  Babylonian. 

Cornill  (Introduction  to  the  Canonical  Books  of 
the  Old  Testament,  449)  calls  (1)  badal,  (2)  'bad, 
(3)  zeman,  (4)  pithgam,  (5)  ra'yon,  (6)  gumats, 
and  (7)  takktf  purely  Aramaic.  The  first  of  these  is 
found  in  Babylonian  and  Arabic  as  well  as  in  Hebrew 
and  Aramaic.  The  classing  of  the  second  as  an 
Aramaism  depends  upon  the  pointing.  The  Targum 
gave  it  the  pointing  of  the  word  for  slave  or  work- 
man and  renders  by  "their  scholars  who  were  subject 
to  them  "  The  third  is  found  in  Arabic  in  the  verb 
forms  as  well  as  in  many  derivatives;  whereas  in 

207  Op.  cfr,pp  440,474 

*os  See  my  article  on  Tmn  in  PTR  for  1919. 



Syriac  there  is  no  verb  form  and  the  nouns  all  have 
6  instead  of  m.  The  fourth  word  is  probably  Hittite 
or  Armenian;  the  fifth  is  not  found  in  any  Aramaic 
dialect  in  the  sense  it  has  in  Ecclesiastes;  and  the 
sixth  is  not  found  in  Syriac  till  the  third  century  and 
then  only  in  the  Bible  and  in  commentaries  on  the 
Bible.  Besides,  the  usual  form  in  Syriac  has  an 
Ayin  for  the  third  radical,  showing  that  the  form  with 
Tsadhe  was  most  probably  derived  from  the  Hebrew. 

We  leave  it  to  our  readers  to  decide  whether  it  is 
more  probable  that  the  Hebrews  derived  these,  and 
all  such,  words  from  the  Babylonian  (if  indeed  most 
of  them  are  not  primitive  Semitic)  documents,  which 
at  least  antedated  the  Hebrew  documents,  rather  than 
from  the  Aramaic,  whose  earliest  use  of  the  words  so 
far  as  shown  in  writing,  is  in  general  from  300  to 
1,000  years  later  than  the  time  of  the  compilation 
of  the  Hebrew,  even  if  with  the  critics  we  put 
Ecclesiastes  as  late  as  100  B.  C. 

Finally,  the  late  Prof.  Kautzsch  in  his  work  on 
Aramaisms  in  the  Old  Testament  (Die  Aramaismen 
im  Alien  Testamente)  gives  about  350  words  as  being 
certainly,  probably,  or  possibly,  of  Aramaic  origin. 
Of  these  about  ISO  do  not  occur  in  form  and  sense 
in  any  Aramaic  dialect.  Two  hundred  and  thirty- 
five  are  found  in  Hebrew  or  Hebrew  and  New 
Hebrew  alone  or  in  Hebrew  and  Babylonian,  Arabic, 
or  Ethiopic,  or  Phenician.  Only  about  115  of  the 
words,  or  roots,  are  found  in  Aramaic  documents 



antedating  the  second  century  A.  D.,  and  only  about 
40  of  these  are  not  found  in  Babylonian,  Arabic, 
Phenician,  or  Ethiopic.  Of  the  350  words,  the  roots 
of  about  25  are  found  in  Phenician  or  Punic;  of  17, 
in  Sabean  and  Mmean;  of  50,  in  Ethiopic;  of  150, 
in  Arabic;  and  of  more  than  100  in  Babylonian. 

Of  these  350  words  50  are  found  in  the  Pentateuch. 
If  these  50  were  really  Aramaic  words,  we  would 
expect  the  Aramaic  versions  to  render  them  by  some 
form  from  the  same  root.  We  find,  however,  that 
the  Samaritan  renders  only  23  in  this  manner;  the 
version  of  Onkelos  24;  the  Pseudo- Jonathan  14,  and 
the  Syriac  Peshitto  17.  That  is,  the  translators  of 
the  Pentateuch  from  Hebrew  into  Aramaic,  all  of 
them  excellent  scholars,  as  their  work  shows,  and  all 
of  them  thoroughly  acquainted  with  Hebrew  and 
Aramaic,  thought  it  necessary  to  translate  from  one- 
half  to  two-thirds  of  these  50  words  in  order  to 
render  them  intelligible  to  the  Aramaean  readers! 
Besides  the  majority  of  the  words  rendered  by  words 
from  the  same  root,  are  found  to  have  the  same  roots 
in  Arabic,  Ethiopic,  or  Babylonian.  For  example, 
the  roots  of  sixteen  out  of  twenty-four  such  words  in 
Onkelos  are  found  also  in  Babylonian  or  Arabic. 

Finally,  of  these  350  words,  only  115  are  found  in 
Biblical  Aramaic,  together  with  the  Aramaic  inscrip- 
tions and  papyri  preceding  200  B.  C.;  and  80  of 
these  115  are  found  in  root  or  form  in  Arabic  or 
Babylonian.  Of  the  remaining  235  words  not  more 



than  15  occur  in  any  or  all  Aramaic  documents  ante- 
dating the  time  when  the  Peshitto  Syriac  version  was 
made;  that  is,  about  200  A.  D. 

In  conclusion,  then,  it  is  evident  that  of  these  350 
words,  about  100  have  not  been  found  in  any  Aramaic 
document,  and  that,  according  to  the  dates  affixed  to 
the  O.  T.  documents  by  the  critics  themselves,  about 
120  more  of  these  words  were  used  by  the  writers  of 
the  Old  Testament  from  350  to  700  years  earlier  than 
they  have  been  found  in  any  Aramaic  document.  We 
can  easily  understand  how  these  translators  of  the 
Bible  into  the  Aramaic  dialects  should  have  borrowed 
many  words  from  the  original,  and  how  the  Jews  who 
wrote  in  Aramaic  should  have  employed  many 
Hebraisms;  but  how  writers  can  have  borrowed 
words  from  documents  written  700  years  after  they 
were  dead  is  a  mystery  for  the  critics  to  explain.  If 
it  is  said  that  these  Aramaic  words  may  have  existed 
and  have  been  known  to  the  Hebrew  critics  700  years 
before  they  were  written  in  Aramaic  documents,  we 
reply:  so  also  can  they  have  existed  and  have  been 
known  in  Hebrew  700  years  before  they  are  found 
in  Hebrew  documents.  Let  us  stick  to  the  written 
documents.  Assertion  and  conjecture  are  not  evi- 
dence. And  yet,  it  is  on  such  alleged  evidence  as  these 
so-called  Aramaisms  that  the  critics  conclude  that 
about  1,500  verses  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  often 
the  sections  and  books  in  which  they  occur,  must 
have  been  written  after  the  exile,  or  even  after  the 



numerous  variations  in  the  numerical  statements. 
Since  these  variations  can  hardly  have  been  inten- 
tional, they  show  how  easy  it  was  to  originate  varia- 
tions in  manuscripts  when  there  was  no  special 
purpose  in  being  accurate.  It  made  little  difference 
to  anyone  whether  the  army  of  Darius  killed  or  took 
alive  a  few  more  or  less  in  a  given  battle.  And  cer- 
tainly, these  variations  afford  no  proof  of  late  date  or 
of  lack  of  genuineness  or  authenticity  on  the  part  of 
the  various  recensions  of  Darius5  great  inscription. 

So,  also,  with  the  variations  in  the  texts  and  manu- 
scripts of  the  Old  Testament,  we  must  not  exaggerate 
the  importance  of  the  difference  in  numerical  state- 
ments, as  if  such  difference  argued  in  general  against 
the  veracity  or  genuineness  of  the  original  documents. 
In  view  of  the  numerous  variations  in  the  contempo- 
raneous, or  almost  contemporaneous,  recensions  of 
the  Behistun  inscription,  we  should  rather  be  aston- 
ished that  the  numerical  statements  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment have  been  handed  down  with  such  marvelous 
comparative  accuracy,  as  that  we  can  reconstruct 
from  the  chronological  data  a  framework  of  chro- 
nology which  harmonizes  so  closely  with  that  revealed 
by  the  monuments, 


The  geographical  statements  of  the  Old  Testament 
are  also  marvelously  in  harmony  with  the  evidence 
presented  by  the  documents  of  Egypt  and  Babylon. 


In  some  passages  of  the  Pentateuch,  as  well  as  of 
the  prophets,  it  is  difficult  for  its  to  see  why  one 
should  be  used  rather  than  the  other;  but  generally 
it  may  be  said  that  the  next  of  kin  (go' el)  performs 
his  duty  toward  his  captive  kinsman  (ga'ul)  by  buy- 
ing him  back  (?tTB),  i.  e.,  paying  the  ransom  money. 
Either  verb  might  rightly  be  used,  therefore,  in  speak- 
ing of  the  redemption.  Any  author  of  any  age  might 
have  used  either  verb  to  denote  this  act  of  redeeming 
on  the  part  of  a  kinsman,  and  there  is  no  passage  in 
the  Pentateuch  where  either  verb  is  used  which  could 
not  as  well  have  been  written  by  the  same  author  as 
all  the  other  passages  containing  either. 


We  object  to  a  word  being  considered  as  an  evi- 
dence of  age  when  no  other  word  in  the  language 
could  have  expressed  the  exact  meaning  as  well  as 
the  one  employed.  Thus  gil  in  Dan.  i.  10,  is  said  to 
indicate  a  date  in  the  second  century  B.  C  rather  than 
the  sixth.  The  only  reason  for  this  given  in  LOT210 
is  that  in  the  use  of  this  word  the  Hebrew  of  Daniel 
resembles  the  Hebrew  "of  the  age  subsequent  to 
Nehemiah"  since  it  is  used  "also  in  Samaritan  and 
Talmudic."  We  have  already  shown211  that  such  re- 
semblances for  hapax  legomena  are  found  in  every 
book  of  the  Old  Testament  and  not  specifically  in 

21°  Page  506,  10. 
211  Page  131  f. 



Daniel.  It  might  be  asked,  also,  why  if  it  character- 
izes the  age  subsequent  to  Nehemiah,  it  is  not  found 
in  Ecclesiasticus  or  the  Zadokite  Fragments.  Or,  if 
we  press  the  argument,  why  then  does  it  not  prove 
that  Daniel  was  written  after  the  Zadokite  Frag- 
ments, i  e.,  after  40  A.  D.?  Of  course,  the  critics 
will  say  that  the  writers  of  these  books  had  no  occa- 
sion to  use  the  word,  since  they  do  not  refer  to  any 
such  band,  or  company  of  men  as  Daniel  and  his  three 
companions.  And  they  are  right;  but  the  same  is 
true  of  all  the  writers  of  the  other  Old  Testament 
books,  and  Daniel  shows  his  linguistic  ability  in  that 
to  express  a  new  idea,  or  a  conception  different  from 
that  employed  by  others,  he  has  made  use  of  a  dif- 
ferent word.  For,  we  would  like  to  ask  the  critics, 
what  word  is  there  in  Hebrew  that  would  so  well 
convey  the  exact  thought  represented  by  gU?  The 
words  for  generation212  would  hardly  suit,  nor  would 
the  ordinary  words  for  band  or  company.213  For  the 
author  means  to  say  just  what  he  does  say,  that  Daniel 
and  his  companions  were  brought  up,  or  reared,  with 
other  youths  of  about  the  same  age.  Of  course,  they 
were  of  the  same  generation  and  perhaps  of  the  same 
race  and  company  and  station  in  society,  but  the  par- 

212  rrfyto  and  in. 

213  ^an  in  1  Sam.  x.  5,  ID,  used  of  the  company  of  prophets  and 
in  Ps    cxix.  61  of  the  wicked;    or  12rt  as  used  in  Hos  vi.  9  of 
the  priests,  are  the  best  possible  words     But  these  could  not  be 
translated  by  age.  in  such  phrases  as  "about  your  age." 



ticular  statement  made  in  Dan.  i.  10  is  that  they  were 
of  about  the  same  number  of  years  of  age.  How 
else  could  the  critics  have  said  it  better  and  more 
clearly  ?  And  how  do  we  know  that  Moses,  or  David, 
or  Isaiah,  or  Jeremiah,  would  not  have  used  the  same? 
word,  if  they  had  wanted  to  express  the  same  idea? 
Let  the  critics  tell  us  how  they  would  have  done  it,  if 
they  had  been  writing  in  the  sixth  century  B.  C.  Let 
them  cease  to  cite  the  traditional  authority  (sic')  of 
DeWette-Schrader  and  other  scholars  and  think  out 
some  way  of  bettering  this  "rotten"  (verderbte) 
Hebrew.21*  As  an  interested  onlooker,  we  expect  to 
see  them  confounded  in  all  their  attempts  to  beat 
Daniel  at  writing  Hebrew.  In  fact,  with  all  his  diffi- 
cult passages,  we  think  him  excellent — much  better  in 
fact  than  anything  in  the  Hebrew  line  of  literature 
that  either  his  German  or  English  detractors  can  them- 
selves produce. 


We  object  to  considering  a  word  or  phrase  recur- 
rent in  one  document  as  being  in  itself  a  proof  of  a 
particular  age.  Kipling's  "that  is  another  story" 
might  have  been  written  any  time  in  the  last  five  hun- 
dred years.  So  "I  am  Jehovah"  might  have  been 
written  at  any  time  from  Abraham  to  Christ. 

21*Der  verderbte  Charakter  des  Idiomes  in  den  hebraisch  con- 
cipirten  Abschnttten  is  cited  by  De  Wette-Schrader  (Einleitung, 
p.  499)  in  favor  of  the  late  date  of  Daniel. 

11  [161] 


Nor  is  the  fact  that  certain  words  occur  in  one 
document  and  certain  other  words  in  another  to  be 
taken  as  constituting  proof  of  different  authors  for 
the  two  documents.  Milton  uses  scores  of  words  in 
his  Areopagitica  which  are  never  found  in  any  of  his 
poetical  works.  He  employs  hundreds  of  words  and 
phrases  in  some  of  his  works  that  are  not  found  in 
others  of  his  works.215  Why  may  Moses  and  Isaiah 
not  have  done  the  same?  The  fact  of  the  variations 
of  words  and  idioms  is  one  thing,  the  reasons  for  the 
variations  are  another  thing.  That  certain  words  for 
"create"  and  "make"  are  used  in  Gen.  i  and  certain 
others  in  Gen.  ii  is  a  fact;  but  if  this  proves  different 
authors,  how  about  the  thirty-two  words  which  are 
found  in  the  Koran  to  express  the  same  idea?  Are 
we  to  conjure  up  a  dozen  or  more  authors  of  the 
Koran  to  account  for  the  variations  in  the  vocabulary? 
We  promise  as  Christians  to  nurture  or  train  our 
children;  but  we  speak  of  rearing,  raising,  educating, 
teaching,  or  bringing  them  up.  In  some  churches, 
they  "take  up  a  collection" ;  in  others,  they  "make  an 
offering."  Differences  of  word  and  idiom  are  not  so 

215  Thus  on  pages  94-97  of  The  Areopagtfica  (Bohn's  edition 
of  the  Prose  Works  of  Milton,  Vol.  II)  he  uses  73  words  not 
found  at  all  in  his  poetical  works.  There  are  584  hapax  legomena 
in  Milton's  poetical  works  beginning  with  the  letter  a  alone.  See 
the  Lexicon  to  the  English  Poetical  Works  of  John  Mtlton,  by 
Laura  E  Lockwood,  Ph.D,  a  work  much  to  be  commended  for 
study  to  those  who  would  engage  in  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the 
Old  Testament. 



much  indications  of  difference  in  age  and  author  as 
they  are  of  difference  in  subject-matter,  fecundity  of 
conception,  and  fertility  of  expression.216  One  great 
writer  will  use  a  larger  vocabulary  and  more  idioms 
than  twenty  men  with  small  knowledge  and  less  lan- 


In  conclusion,  we  claim  that  the  assaults  upon  the 
integrity  and  trustworthiness  of  the  Old  Testament 
along  the  line  of  language  have  utterly  failed.  The 
critics  have  not  succeeded  in  a  single  line  of  attack  in 
showing  that  the  diction  and  style  of  any  part  of  the 
Old  Testament  are  not  in  harmony  with  the  ideas  and 
aims  of  writers  who  lived  at,  or  near,  the  time  when 
the  events  occurred  that  are  recorded  in  the  various 
documents.  In  every  case,  it  seems  clear  that  the 
language  suits  the  age  at  which  the  prima  facie  evi- 
dence of  the  document  indicates  that  it  was  written. 
We  boldly  challenge  these  Goliaths  of  ex-cathedra 
theories  to  come  down  into  the  field  of  ordinary  con- 
cordances, dictionaries,  and  literature,  and  fight  a 
fight  to  the  finish  on  the  level  ground  of  the  facts  and 
the  evidence. 

216  See  my  article  on  The  Authenticity  of  Jonah  in  PTR  for 






FINALLY,  let  us  review  the  framework  of  Old 
Testament  history  as  a  whole  and  see  how  it 
stands  the  tests  which  modern  scientific  research 
has  brought  to  bear  upon  it.  Can  a  man  of  scientific 
attainments  still  place  any  reliance  upon  the  chrono- 
logical, geographical  and  other  historical  statements 
of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  canon?  Or,  has 
the  light  from  Egypt  and  Babylon  dispelled  as  a  base- 
less fabric  of  a  vision  of  the  night  that  which  was 
formerly  considered  to  be  a  real  structure  of  historic 


Let  us  look  at  the  chronology  of  the  Bible,  begin- 
ning with  the  time  of  Abraham. 

1.  In  the  four  great  systems  of  biblical  chronology 
prepared  from  the  biblical  statements  alone,  before 
anything  definite  was  known  in  the  fields  of  Egyptian 
and  Babylonian  archaeology,  HaJes  puts  the  time  of 
Abram's  leaving  Haran  at  2078  B.  C.,  Jackson  at 
2023,  Petavius  at  1961,  and  Ussher  at  1921.  Since 
Gen.  xiv  places  Abraham  in  the  time  of  Hammurabi, 
it  is  fair  to  ask  when  the  Assyriologists  date  the  reign 
of  the  latter.  Jeremias  puts  him  at  about  2000  B. 
C,217  Clay  at  about  2100  B.  C218  It  will  thus  be  seen 

217  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Light  of  the  Ancient  Jfort,  I,  322. 
2"  Light  on  the  Old  Testament  from  Babel,  130, 



that  the  date  of  Abraham  as  deduced  from  the  facts 
provided  by  the  biblical  text  alone  has  been  confirmed 
in  a  wonderful  way  by  the  evidence  derived  from 
Babylonian  sources. 

2.  The  relative  date  of  Shishak,  king  of  Egypt, 
corresponds  to  that  of  Rehoboam  and  is  certainly  to 
be  placed  somewhere  in  the  tenth  century  B.  C.219 

3.  The  relative  dates  of  the  kings  of  Israel  and 
Judah  between  the  division  of  the  kingdom  and  the 
fall  of  Samaria,  as  given  in  the  Bible,  correspond  in 
general  with  what  we  find  on  the  Assyrian  monu- 

4.  The  relative  dates  of  the  kings  of  Assyria  and 
Egypt  as  given  on  the  monuments  of  their  respective 
countries  correspond  with  what  we  find  in  the  Old 
Testament  books. 

5.  The   relative   dates   of   the    Babylonian   kings 
Nebuchadnezzar,     Evil-merodach     and     Belshazzar 
agree  in  biblical  and  monumental  accounts.  The  order 
is  correct  in  whatever  sense  Belshazzar  may  have  been 

6.  The  relative  dates  of  the  Cyrus  of  Ezra,  the 
Darius  of  Haggai  and  Zechariah,  and  the  Xerxes  and 
Artaxerxes  of  Ezra  are  certainly  correct;    notwith- 
standing the  difficulties  in  explaining  the  passage  in 
Ezra  iv. 

It  is  thus  apparent  that  the  general  scheme  of 

21*  See  Jeremias,  op.  cit.  II,  204  f . 


chronology  which  underlies  the  history  recorded  in 
the  Old  Testament  is  abundantly  justified  by  the  evi- 
dence disclosed  by  the  extra-biblical  records  of  an- 
tiquity. As  to  the  apparently  conflicting  statements 
of  the  present  Hebrew  text,  it  must  be  remembered 
that  many  of  them  are  doubtless  occasioned  by  the  in- 
evitable corruptions  in  the  text,  arising  from  the  prac- 
tical impossibility  of  transcribing  numerical  data  with 
accuracy.  No  one  knows  how  numbers  were  denoted 
in  the  original  Hebrew  documents.  It  is  known  that 
the  Egyptians,  Babylonians,  Phenicians,  Arameans, 
Nabateans  and  Palmyrenes,  denoted  numbers  by  a 
system  of  notation  signs.  The  earliest  example  of  the 
use  of  a  letter  of  the  alphabet  in  a  Semitic  document 
to  denote  a  number  is  in  the  Egypto-Aramaic  inscrip- 
tions where  b  seems  to  be  used  for  two  and  t  for 
nine*20  A  double  system  of  numerical  signs  and  let- 
ters seems  to  have  existed  among  the  Syrians  till  the 
ninth  century  A.  D.221  Sometimes  the  signs  were 
given  and  the  number  written  also  in  full  as  in  the 
Sendschirli  inscriptions.222  In  the  Mesha  and  Siloah 
inscriptions  the  numbers  are  written  in  full.228  In  the 
Sachau  papyri  they  are  commonly  denoted  by  signs. 

A  comparison  of  the  Aramaic  recension  of  the 
Behistun    inscription    with    the    Babylonian    shows 

220  Sachau,  Aramaische  Papyrus  u.  Ostraka,  p.  276,  and  Sayce- 
Cowley  in  loco. 

221  Sachau,  id. 

222  Lidzbarski,  Nordsemitische  Epigraphik,  p.  198. 
™*  Id. 



numerous  variations  in  the  numerical  statements. 
Since  these  variations  can  hardly  have  been  inten- 
tional, they  show  how  easy  it  was  to  originate  varia- 
tions in  manuscripts  when  there  was  no  special 
purpose  in  being  accurate.  It  made  little  difference 
to  anyone  whether  the  army  of  Darius  killed  or  took 
alive  a  few  more  or  less  in  a  given  battle.  And  cer- 
tainly, these  variations  afford  no  proof  of  late  date  or 
of  lack  of  genuineness  or  authenticity  on  the  part  of 
the  various  recensions  of  Darius'  great  inscription. 

So,  also,  with  the  variations  in  the  texts  and  manu- 
scripts of  the  Old  Testament,  we  must  not  exaggerate 
the  importance  of  the  difference  in  numerical  state- 
ments, as  if  such  difference  argued  in  general  against 
the  veracity  or  genuineness  of  the  original  documents. 
In  view  of  the  numerous  variations  in  the  contempo- 
raneous, or  almost  contemporaneous,  recensions  of 
the  Behistun  inscription,  we  should  rather  be  aston- 
ished that  the  numerical  statements  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment have  been  handed  down  with  such  marvelous 
comparative  accuracy,  as  that  we  can  reconstruct 
from  the  chronological  data  a  framework  of  chro- 
nology which  harmonizes  so  closely  with  that  revealed 
by  the  monuments, 


The  geographical  statements  of  the  Old  Testament 
are  also  marvelously  in  harmony  with  the  evidence 
presented  by  the  documents  of  Egypt  and  Babylon. 



1.  Thus,  the  names  of  nations  and  cities  mentioned 
in  the  history  of  Abraham  are  in  general  such  as  are 
known  from  the  inscriptions  to  have  been  existent  at 
the  time  of  Hammurabi,22*  or  such  as  may  have 
existed  in  his  time,225  or  whose  existence  in  his  time 
cannot  be  denied  on  the  ground  of  any  evidence  we 
possess,226  or  such  as  may  well  have  been  substituted 
for  older  names  in  order  to  make  the  narration  intel- 
ligible to  the  readers  of  later  times.227  This  last 
alternative,  which  affords  the  only  real  or  supposed 
difficulty  with  regard  to  the  possibility  of  the  his- 
torical character  of  the  narrative,  would  be  obviated 
if  we  suppose  that  the  account  of  Abraham's  life  was 
originally  written  in  cuneiform;  because  in  that 
system  of  writing  the  signs  might  be  read  in  different 
ways.  For  example,  the  name  of  the  city  of  Babylon 
was  written  in  Sumerian  Ka-dingir-ra-ki  or  H-'kl,  or 
Din-tir-ki,  or  it  was  written  in  Babylonian  as  mahasu 
Ba-bi-li.  In  all  four  cases  the  Babylonian  scribes  of 
the  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  Cyrus  must  have 
pronounced  the  name  as  Babili,  though  an  ignorant 
reader  might  have  spelled  out  the  three  first  groups 
of  signs  as  Rardingir-rarki  or  B-ki  or  Din-tir-ki,  re- 
spectively, these  being  doubtless  the  earlier  designa- 
tions of  the  place  in  Sumerian,  before  the  Semitic 

224  Such  as  Egypt,  Elam,  Larsa,  Babylon  and  Ur. 

225  Such  as  Harran,  Damaskus,  and  Beer-shebau 
22«  Such  as  Hebron. 

m  Such  as  Dan  and  Philistia. 



conquerors  appeared  on  the  scene.  So  Laish  may 
have  been  written  with  the  signs  la  and  ish  in  cunei- 
form and  might  be  read  as  Laish,  or  after  the  con- 
quest by  the  Danites  as  Dan,228  As  for  Pelishtim 
(Philistines),  we  may  compare  the  Sumerian  nim-ma- 
kif  the  equivalent  m  the  Babylonian  recension  of  the 
Behistun  inscription  of  the  Persian  uvaga  and  of  the 
Susian  haltamti  (or  hutamti)  and  of  the  more  usual 
Babylonian  B-lam-mat?29  Weissbach  correctly  trans- 
literates the  Sumerian  signs  nim-ma  by  the  Baby- 
lonian word  elamtu.  So  the  signs  rendered  by 
Pelishtim  in  our  Hebrew  Bibles  may  originally  have 
denoted  another  name.  That  is,  the  sign  for  the  land 
or  city  often  remained  the  same,  but  the  denotation 
of  the  signs  changed.  The  examples  of  this  in  the 
cuneiform  documents  are  so  numerous  that,  if  it 
could  be  proven  that  the  names  Dan  and  Pelishtim  did 
not  exist  in  the  time  of  Abraham,  we  would  be  amply 
justified  in  supposing  that  in  the  documents  written 
in  that  time  they  were  denoted  by  signs  that  could 
afterwards  be  properly  read  by  the  Hebrews  in  two 
different  ways. 

2.  That  the  names  of  cities  and  nations  mentioned 
in  Gen.  x  suit  the  time  of  Moses  better  than  any  other 
time  was  fully  discussed  in  an  article  of  the  present 

228  The  same  Chinese  sign  is  read  Seoul  in  Corean  and  Heijo 
in  Japanese.    Another  sign  is  read  Pyeng-yang  in  Corean  and 
Heiko  in  Japanese. 

229  See  Weissbach,  Die  Ketlenschriften  der  Achaemeniden,  p. 



writer  in  the  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review  for 
1884.  If  we  add  to  what  was  then  written  the  fact 
of  the  probable  double  reading  of  the  cuneiform  signs 
in  certain  cases,  the  conclusions  of  that  article  will  be 
corroborated  and  no  reasonable  doubt  can  longer  be 
entertained  that~the  genealogies  of  Genesis  x  harmon- 
ize with  the  state  of  geographical  science  in  the  time  of 
Rameses  II.  This  well-known  method  of  double  read- 
ing might  explain  also  such  difficult  words  as  Casluhim 
and  Naphtuhim2*0 — words  that  have  hitherto  baffled 
the  interpreters  of  all  schools  at  whatever  time  they 
place  the  date  of  the  composition  of  Genesis  x. 

3.  The  discovery  of  Pithom  and  Rameses2304  has 
established  forever  the  firm  foundation  of  the  account 
of  the  Exodus.231 

4.  The  appropriate  manner,  both  as  to  time  and 
place,  with  which  the  proper  names  of  cities  and  coun- 
tries are  used  in  the  Old  Testament  defies  all  hostile 
criticism  directed  against  the  genuineness  of  the  nar- 
ratives.   The  marvelous  way  in  which  such  countries, 
nations,   and  cities  as   Elam,  the  Hittites,  the   old 
Babylonians,    the    Assyrians,    the    Egyptians    and 
Ethiopians,  the  Moabites,  and  the  Edomites;   Tyre, 
Sidon,  Damascus,  Hamath,  Separad,  and  scores  of 

280  Knight  in  The  Nile  and  the  Jordan  (pp.  168,  169)  identifies 
Casluhim  with  the  Kasluhtt  of  the  Kom  Ombo  list 

230aSee  Naville:  The  Store-City  of  Ptthom  and  the  Route  of 
the  Exodus.  Egypt  Expl.  Fund,  1885  (4th  Edition,  1903)  and 
Goshen,  1887. 

281  See  Naville,  The  Store  Cities  of  the  Exodus. 



other  names  of  places,  are  brought  into  the  biblical 
narrative,  each  in  its  proper  place  and  time,  and 
generally  with  the  very  spelling  as  accurate  as  could 
be  expected,  is  beyond  comparison  in  any  ancient 
document.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  biblical  rec- 
ords have  stood  the  test  of  extra-biblical  evidence  in, 
scores  of  cases  where  its  testimony  is  clear  and  in- 
disputable, it  is  inadmissible  to  claim  that  the  biblical 
documents  are  wrong,  either  when  there  is  no  evi- 
dence on  the  monuments,232  or  whenever  we  with  our 
limited  knowledge  of  the  facts  and  circumstances 
cannot  explain  satisfactorily  the  location  and  colloca- 
tion of  the  name.283 

5.  Another  fact  that  must  always  be  kept  in  mind 
in  discussing  the  Old  Testament  is  this :  It  was  from 
the  beginning  according  to  its  own  testimony  meant 
to  be  a  book  for  the  people  and  not  for  antiquarians 
and  scholars  merely.284  Hence,  we  can  well  believe 
that  as  the  designation  of  certain  places  changed,  the 
text  of  the  Bible  was  often  changed  accordingly. 
This  would  account  for  such  possible  changes  as  Dan 
and  Pelishtim;  just  as  we  might  and  do  speak  of 
Constantinople  as  having  been  from  the  time  of  the 
glory  of  Greece  the  busy  center  of  commercial  activity 

282  As  in  the  case  of  the  Hivites,  Girgashites,  Magog,  etc. 

283  As  in  the  case  of  Tiras,  Ashkenaz,  Sabtah,  and  a  few  other 
names  in  Gen.  x. 

284  The  law  was  to  be  read  to  the  people  (Deut  xxxi.  11)  and 
according  to  Nek  viii.  8  it  was  explained  (ttnao)  to  them. 



and  of  New  York  Bay  as  having  been  entered  by 
Henry  Hudson,235  or  of  Columbus  or  Cabot  as  hav- 
ing discovered  America  (a  name  probably  not  given 
to  the  continent  till  1507). 236  That  we  are  not  with- 
out warrant  for  this  supposition  is  shown  by  the  fol- 
lowing facts: 

(1)  The  bilingual  Babylonian  inscriptions  are  full 
of  these  twofold  designations  of  the  same  place  or 

(2)  The   triple-inscription   of   Behistun   and   the 
Aramaic  translation  of  the  same  often  give  us  four 
different  names  for  the  same  country.237 

(3)  The  Elephantine  of  the  Greeks  was  8&*aMa  in 
Egyptian,  and  Yeb  in  our  Aramaic  text. 

(4)  In  the  Old  Testament  itself  two  names  are 
sometimes  used  for  the  same  city  or  country.288 

(5)  The  Jewish  translators  of  the  Old  Testament 
did  not  hesitate  to  render  the  proper  names  of  places 

235  Scnbner's  History  of  the  United  States,  I,  p.  xxx. 
***Id.  I,  127  f, 

237  Thus  the  Persian  gives  Armenia  as  Armina,  the  Susian  as 
Harminuya,  the  Babylonian  as  Urastu  and  the  Aramaic  as  BYIM* 
The  name  for  Babylon  is  given  as  Babirush  in  the  Persian, 
Ba-pi-li  in  the  Susian,  and  in  the  Babylonian  is  written  in  two 
different  ways,  while  on  other  inscriptions  it  is  written  in  at  least 
four  additional  ways. 

287»  See  the  inscription  from  the  tomb  of  Her-Khuf  at  Assouan 
Abu  in  Egyptian  means  elephant,  the  Greek  Elephantine  being 
simply  a  translation. 

238  Thus,  oma  and  on  (for  Egypt),  Hebron  and  Kirjath-Arba, 
Salem  and  Jerusalem. 



by  terms  which  conveyed  the  proper  location  to  the 
people  for  whose  benefit  the  translation  was  made. 
Thus,  the  authors  of  the  Greek  Septuagint  frequently 
render  Philistines  by  Allophuloi;  Misraim  and  Ham 
by  Mgyptos.  The  Targum  of  Onkelos  gives  dif- 
ferent terms  to  more  than  twenty  names  of  places 
mentioned  in  the  Pentateuch,  besides  giving  transla- 
tions of  the  names  of  more  than  twenty  others.289 
The  Samaritan  Targum  has  about  one  hundred  and 
twenty  proper  names,  mostly  names  of  places  and 
nations,  that  are  given  differently  from  what  we  find 
them  in  the  Hebrew  Massoritic  text.240  The  Peshitto 
translation,  also,  used  all  of  these  liberties  with  the 
proper- names.241 

From  these  analogies  we  are  justified  in  concluding 
that  the  mere  presence  in  documents  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment of  certain  geographical  terms  of  later  origin, 
than  the  rest  of  the  documents  is  not  conclusive  proof 
that  the  mass  of  the  documents  is  as  late  as  the  terms 
so  used.  It  may  be  simply  an  evidence  of  editing  for 

2«9  gee  Bredenk's  Konkordanz  sum  Targum  Onkelos. 

240  So,  according  to  the  concordance  in  my  possession ;    some 
of  these  names   are   translations    from   Hebrew   into   Aramaic; 
some  are  the  Greek  equivalents  of  the  Hebrew  which  have  been 
taken  over  into  the  Aramaic. 

241  This  is  evident  in  a  comparison  of  the  proper  names  of 
Gen.  x  and  xxi.    Here  we  find  Cappadocia  for  Caphtor,  Sephar- 
vaim  for  Sippar,  Ain  d'  ebrroye  for  'yye  na'banm,  Rametha  for 



the  sake  of  making  the  documents  intelligible  to  the 
persons  for  whom  they  were  designed.2 

I  242 


As  to  the  historic  character  of  the  Old  Testament 
records  in  general  there  are  no  reasonable  grounds 
for  doubting  it.  For, 

1.  The  language  in  which  the  different  documents 
are  written  corresponds  with  the  claim  of  the  docu- 
ments as  to  the  time  and  place  in  which  they  were 
written.  The  first  chapters  of  Genesis  and  Daniel  are 
fullest  of  words  derived  from  the  Babylonian,  as 
would  be  expected  in  records  derived  from  Ur  of  the 
Chaldees  and  Babylon.  The  records  concerning  the 
patriarchs  who  are  said  to  have  lived  in  Egypt  are  the 
ones  containing  the  most  words  of  Egyptian  origin. 
The  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  words  occurring  in  the 
documents  from  the  eighth  century  downwards  are 
mostly  governmental  terms  and  are  such  as  would 
naturally  be  borrowed  from  the  dominating  races  of 
the  time.  The  Indo-European  terms,  whether 
Indian,  Hittite,  Medo-Persian,  or  Greek,  appear  in, 
documents  which  were  written  in  the  times  from 
Solomon  onward,  when  the  commercial  and  military 
relations  of  the  Hebrews  with  the  peoples  speaking 

242  A  good  example  of  such  editing  is  to  be  found  in  certain 
changes  made  in  the  King  James*  version  in  the  Tercentenary 
Edition  of  the  Oxford  Press,  where,  for  example,  the  word  "pre- 
vent" of  the  1611  editions  has  been  changed  to  "anticipate,"  "go 
before,"  etc. 

12  [177] 


the  languages  from  which  the  terms  are  borrowed 
would  lead  us  to  expect  the  influx  of  the  new  and 
foreign  words  to  express  the  new  ideas  which  they 

As  to  the  Aramaic  loan  words,  not  one  can  be 
proven  to  be  present  in  the  Pentateuch,  except  in  Gen. 
xxxi.  47,  where  the  Hebrew  Gal'eed  (Gilead)  is 
stated  to  have  been  called  by  Laban  Yegar-sa'adutha, 
of  which  compound  the  second  word  is  certainly 
Aramaic.  The  existence  of  tribes  speaking  Aramaic 
can  be  proven  from  the  monuments  as  far  back  as  the 
Tel-el-Amarna  letters.243  The  fact  that  there  are 
more  than  one  hundred  explanations  in  Hebrew  of 
Babylonian  words  in  the  Amarna  Letters  shows  that 
Hebrew  was  understood  at  the  court  of  the  Egyptian 
kings,  Amenophis  III  and  IV.  This  confirms  the 
biblical  account  of  the  residence  of  Israelites  in  Egypt 
before  the  time  of  Moses. 

2.  As  we  have  seen  above,24*  the  names,  the  order, 
and  the  time  of  reigning  of  the  different  kings  of  the 
countries  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  harmon- 
izes with  what  we  find  in  the  documents  of  Egypt, 
Babylon,  Assyria,  and  other  countries.245  A  harmony 
is  found,  also,  in  the  statements  made  as  to  the  rela- 

2AS  See  Kraeling,  Aram  and  Israel 

2«  Page  72  f 

2«  see  for  Damaskus,  the  article  by  Professor  John  D.  Davis 
in  the  April  number  of  the  PTR  for  1919  on  "Hadadezer  or 



tive  power  of  these  kings  and  the  extent  of  their 

3.  We   have   already   shown   that   the   language, 
grammar  and  literary  forms  are  suitable  to  the  re- 
spective ages  in  which  the  documents  claim  to  have 
been  written. 

4.  The  civil,  criminal  and  constitutional  laws  also, 
both  in  their  general  character  and  in  their  literary 
forms,  are  in  agreement  with  the  times  and  circum- 
stances when  they  are  said  to  have  been  enunciated, 
or  in  use.246    As  to  the  ceremonial  and  ethical  laws 
of  the  Old  Testament,  they  are  distinguished  from 
those  of  all  ancient  peoples,  especially  by  the  fact 
that  they  are  monotheistic  and  unicentral.    That  the 
ceremonial  laws  cannot  have  been  derived  from  the 
other  Semites  is  shown  by  the  almost  absolutely  dif- 
ferent vocabulary  employed  to  express  the  acts  and 
forms  of  religious  service.247     The  vocabulary  cor- 
roborates the  statements  of  the  records  by  showing 
that  the  Hebrew  religion  was  of  unique  origin  and  of 
internal  development 

5.  That  the  Hebrew  records  which  the  critics  assign 

2*6This  statement  is  based  on  comparisons  derived  from  the 
Code  of  Hammurabi  and  the  laws  of  the  Egyptians  as  gathered 
together  in  Revilloux's  Lots  et  Droits  des  Egyptiens. 

247  gee  the  author's  articles  on  "Babylon  and  the  Bible"  in  the 
Pres.  and  Ref*  Review  for  1902,  and  in  The  Bible  Student  for 
1904.  The  dissimilarity  in  religious  vocabulary  which  character- 
izes the  Hebrew  as  compared  with  the  Babylonian  is  apparent^ 
also,  as  between  the  Hebrew  on  the  one  hand  and  the  Phenician 
and  various  Aramaic  dialects  on  the  other. 



to  the  post-Nehemiah  period  were  written  long  before 
(as  they  purport  to  have  been)  is  shown  by  the  fact 
that  the  meanings  of  many  of  the  terms  in  them  were 
unknown  when  the  earliest  translations  were  made. 
Even  at  the  time  when  the  Septuagint  was  made, 
many  meanings  of  Hebrew  roots  seem  to  have  been 
unknown  to  them.248  This  is  shown  by  the  frequent 
transliterations  found  in  that  version.  It  seems  in- 
explicable, also,  that  the  different  translators  of  the 
Pentateuch  should  have  varied  so  much  as  they  do 
in  the  rendition  of  many  of  the  terms  to  denote  ani- 
mals, articles  of  clothing,  drugs,  implements,  etc.,  if 
these  parts  had  been  written  in  post-captivity  times, 
when  Aramaic  was  spoken  by  many  of  the  Jews  and 
understood  by  all  the  educated  among  them.2*9 

6.  That  some  of  the  headings  of  the  Psalms  are  not 
rendered  in  the  I/XX  would  indicate  that  the  songs, 
instruments,  times  or  circumstances  to  which  they 

248  See  my  article  on  "Lost  Meanings  of  Hebrew  Roots,"  in 
Pres.  and  Ref  Review,  for  1892. 

240  That  some  of  the  headings  of  the  Psalms  are  not  rendered 
in  the  kXX  would  indicate  that  the  songs,  instruments,  times  or 
circumstances  to  which  they  refer  had  passed  out  of  the  memory 
and  tradition  of  the  Jews.  If  the  headings  had  been  inserted 
after  the  Greek  version  was  made,  it  is  hard  to  see  how  the  later 
Jews,  who  made  the  Targums  and  Talmuds,  should  not  have 
understood  their  sense.  That  Psalms  from  the  times  of  Moses 
and  David  may  have  been  dated  as  we  find  them  in  the  Bible  is 
evident  from  the  subscriptions  of  the  Sumerian  psalms  from  the 
time  of  Hammurabi.  These  subscriptions  give  at  times  the  author, 
purpose,  god  addressed,  tune,  musical  instruments  and  other  notes 
similar  to  those  found  in  the  Psalter.  See  my  articles  in  the 
PTR  for  1926. 



refer  had  passed  out  of  the  memory  and  tradition  of 
the  Jews.  If  the  headings  had  been  inserted  after 
the  Greek  version  was  made/ it  is  hard  to  see  how 
the  later  Jews,  who  made  the  Targums  and  Talmuds, 
should  not  have  understood  their  sense. 

7.  Many  undesigned  coincidences  support  the  his- 
toricity of  the  Old  Testament    One  of  the  most  re- 
markable of  these  is  the  mention  of  the  horse  first  in 
the  history  of  Joseph,  coincident  with  the  appearance 
of  the  animal  in  the  history  of  Western  Asia  and 
Egypt.     Another  is  the  failure  to  mention  the  ele- 
phant.    If  a  large  part  of  the  Old  Testament  was 
written  in  the  Greek  period,  it  is  noteworthy  that  this 
animal,  which  constituted  the  main  arm  of  the  mili- 
tary service  from  the  time  of  Alexander  down  to  the 
time  of  the  Romans  should  never  be  noticed  even  in 
the  psalms  which  are  alleged  to  be  from  Maccabean 
times.    Especially  is  it  noteworthy,  when  we  find  the 
elephant  playing  so  prominent  a  part  in  the  wars  of 
the  Maccabees. 

8.  As  to  the  appropriateness  of  the  proper  names 
of  persons  with  the  times  in  which  they  are  said  to 
have  lived,  the  following  may  be  said : 

(1)  The  names  of  persons  in  Genesis  from  Abra- 
ham to  Joseph  inclusive  are  in  general  such  as  the 
documents  from  the  time  of  Hammurabi  and  from 
Egypt  would  lead  us  to  expect.  Some  of  them  have 
not  as  yet  been  found  outside  of  the  Scriptures,  but 
in  every  case  these  exceptions  have  their  parallels  in 



form  or  sense  in  the  documents  of  the  pre-Mosaic 

(2)  The  names  of  persons  from  David  to  Ezra 
are  entirely  in  harmony  with  the  names  to  be  ex- 
pected and  such  as  are  found  m  the  documents  from 
Samaria,  Moab,  Assyria,  and  elsewhere. 

(3)  For  the  times  between  Joseph  and  David  too 
little   is    known    from   extra-biblical    documents    to 
enable  anyone  to  make  a  successful  attack  on  the  ap- 
propriateness of  the  names  of  persons  mentioned  in 
the  Old  Testament  records. 

9.  Attacks  upon  the  genuineness  and  authority  of 
the  history  because  it  contains  accounts  of  miracles 
will  be  made  by  those  only  who  are  unacquainted  with 
ancient  historic  records.    Whether  what  they  thought 
to  be  miracles  were  really  miracles,  and  wherein  the 
miracles  consisted,  are  proper  subjects  of  investiga- 
tion, but  no  one  can  successfully  dispute  that  all 
ancient  peoples  believed  in  them  and  that  all  ancient 
records  are  full  of  accounts  of  them.251    In  fact,  so 
much  is  this  the  case  that  a  historic  record  claiming 
to  be  ancient  which  contained  no  account  of  supposed 
miracles  might  justly  be  suspected  of  being  a  forgery 
of  later  times. 

10.  In  like  manner,  he  who  rejects  a  document 
merely  because  it  contains  what  purport  to  be  apoca- 
lypses, or  predictions,  ignores  the  spirit,  beliefs  and 

250  See  Langdon's  Sttmerian  and  Babylonian  Psalms. 

251  See  my  article  in  the  Bible  Student  for  1903. 



practices  of  pre-Christian  times.252  Whether  a  docu- 
ment is,  (or  contains,  a  prediction  and  what  the  pre- 
diction means  and  whether  and  how  it  was  fulfilled, 
are  all  proper  subjects  of  investigation.  But  all 
ancient  history  reveals  clearly  that  the  nations  be- 
lieved sincerely  in  the  possibility  and  in  the  fact  of 
the  revelation  of  the  will  of  the  God  or  gods  whom 
they  worshipped.  None  but  a  deist,  or  an  atheist, 
will  deny  their  possibility.  Theists  must  admit  that 
they  may  have  occurred.  Christians  will  believe  that 
the  probability  of  their  occurrence  is  involved  in  the 
mission  of  Jesus,  the  Word  made  flesh,  through 
whom  God  in  these  latter  days  hath  spoken  unto  us 
as  in  old  times  He  spake  through  the  prophets. 
Attacks  upon  Isaiah,  Daniel  and  other  books,  because 
they  abound  in  wonderful  predictions,  will  have 
weight  only  with  those  who  deny  the  fundamentals 
of  Christianity.  To  one  who  believes  in  the  Lord  and 
Saviour,  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  and  in  the 
preparation  of  the  world  for  His  coming,  the  predic- 
tions of  the  Old  Testament  are  but  the  glimmerings 
of  rosy-fingered  dawn  before  the  full-orbed  sun  bursts 
forth  as  the  light  of  a  darkened  world. 

11.  The  objections  «made  to  the  genuineness  of  cer- 
tain parts  of  the  Old  Testament  upon  the  ground  that 
they  contain  ideas  found  in  extra-biblical  literature 

252  See  my  article  on  "Jonah"  and  on  "What  does  'the  stm  stood 
still1  mean?"  in  the  PTR  for  1918. 



only  in  documents  from  an  age  later  than  the  sup- 
posed date  of  the  biblical  document  might  be  taken 
with  seriousness  if  they  were  made  by  an  atheist  or 
deist,  but  when  made  by  one  who  claims  to  be  a  theist 
and  to  believe  in  a  revelation,  and  when  they  occur 
in  what  purports  to  be  a  revelation,  they  seem  too 
puerile  to  be  even  considered  with  patience  and  equa- 
nimity. What!  Must  Jehovah  have  derived  His 
ideas  of  the  resurrection  from  the  Persians  ?  Whence 
then  did  they  derive  them?  And  what  care  I  for 
their  ideas  more  than  for  those  of  Plato  or  other  wise 
men  of  the  past  and  present?  I  know  nothing.  They 
know  nothing.  Things  that  are  equal  to  the  same 
thing,  etc.  And  yet,  the  critics  deny  the  authorship 
of  Is.  xxiv-xxvii  by  Isaiah,  and  assert  that  Daniel  is 
later  than  the  fifth  century  B.  C.,  on  the  ground 
among  others,  that  the  future  resurrection  is  pre- 
dicted in  these  documents  on  the  authority  of  God. 
Oh,  mortal  man,  canst  thou  bind  the  cords  of  Orion, 
or  set  a  bound  to  the  wisdom  and  foreknowledge  of 
the  Almighty?383 

12.  The  most  specious  objection  made  to  the 
Mosaic  date  and  historical  character  of  the  Pentateuch 
is  based  upon  the  infrequent  references  to  the  laws, 
especially  those  of  H  and  P,  found  in  the  books  of 
Judges,  Samuel  and  Kings;  and  further,  upon  the 
fact  that  the  observances  noted  are  often  contrary  to 

2133  See  my  article  on  Apocalypses  and  the  Date  of  Daniel  in 
PTR  for  1921. 



the  requirements  of  the  law.  The  force  of  this  objec- 
tion is  broken  by  the  following  considerations,  to 
wit:  that  the  purpose  of  the  books  of  Judges, 
Samuel  and  Kings,  the  critics  themselves  being  wit- 
nesses, was  not  to  give  us  a  history  of  the  religious 
institutions  of  Israel.  "The  stories  of  the  deliverance 
of  Israel  represent  only  certain  glorious  moments  in 
the  history  of  these  centuries."  2W  "The  subject  of 
the  book  of  Samuel  is  the  creation  of  a  united  Israel 
by  Samuel,  Saul,  and  David."  255  With  this  purpose 
in  mind  the  authors  generally  make  allusions  to  the 
law  and  the  religious  institutions  and  observances 
only  in  so  far  as  they  affect  the  history  of  the  kings 
and  nations  whose  fortunes  it  is  the  aim  of  the  author 
to  describe  and  moralize  upon.  The  rule  of  conduct 
for  the  people  they  rightly  find  in  the  codes  of  E  and 
D  and  in  the  words  of  the  prophets.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  book  of  Chronicles  was  a  history  meant  to 
confine  itself  "to  matters  still  interesting  to  the  theo- 
cracy of  Zion,  keeping  Jerusalem  and  the  temple  in 
the  foreground,  and  developing  the  divine  pragma- 
tism of  the  history,  with  reference,  not  so  much  to 
the  prophetic  word  as  to  the  fixed  legislation  of  the 
Pentateuch  (especially  the  Priests'  Code),  so  that  the 
whole  narrative  might  be  made  to  teach  that  Israel's 
glory  lies  in  the  observance  of  the  divine  law  and 

25*  Reader  I   Stop  here  and  read  Job  xxxviii-xli. 
258  C.  F.  Moore  in  Hnc.  Bib.,  p.  2641. 



ritual."250  Keeping  in  mind  the  difference  in  pur- 
pose on  the  part  of  the  writer  of  Chronicles  it  is  easy 
to  understand  his  frequent  references  to  the  laws  of 
H  and  P  as  well  as  to  those  of  E  and  D.  Judges, 
Samuel,  and  Kings  give  an  epitome  of  the  history  of 
Israel  primarily  from  the  political  and  moral  side; 
Chronicles,  primarily  from  the  legal  and  religious 
side.257  The  conquest,  the  wars,  the  erection  of  the 
temple  as  the  symbol  of  the  unity  of  Israel,  the  divi- 
sion of  the  kingdom  and  the  history  of  the  two  parts 
of  it,  and  the  final  destruction  of  both  kingdoms  with 
the  causes  and  manner  thereof,  constituted  the  sub- 
ject-matter of  the  prophetic  history;  the  priestly 
writer  on  the  other  hand,  gives  the  history  of  the 
kings  and  of  the  nations  only  as  a  background  to  his 
picture  of  the  ecclesiastical  and  liturgical  development 
of  Israel  based  upon  the  prescriptions  of  the  law  of 
Moses.  The  prophetical  writers  dwell  more  upon  the 
breaches  of  the  laws,  the  priestly  writer  more  upon 
the  observance  of  them.  In  order  to  maintain  their 
assertion  that  the  laws  of  H  and  P  are  not  mentioned 
in  the  history,  the  critics  must  and  do  deny  the  re- 
liability of  the  history  recorded  in  Chronicles.  The 
force  of  their  objection,  therefore,  depends  upon  the 
ability  of  the  critics  to  establish  the  unhistorical  char- 
acter of  the  material  facts  recorded  in  the  works  of 
Ezra,  Nehemiah  and  Chronicles  in  so  far  as  they  give 

***W.  Robertson  Smith  and  Ed  Komg  in  Enc.  Bib,  p.  2664. 
257 W.  R.  Smith  and  S  R  Driver  in  Enc.  Bib,  p.  765. 



information  additional  to,  or  in  apparent  conflict  with 
what  we  find  in  the  older  books.  The  precarious 
character  of  the  evidences  for  the  date  of  a  document 
to  be  used  from  the  use  of  the  names  and  designa- 
tions of  God  is  to  be  seen  in  the  collections  of  such 
names  gathered  from  the  Koran,  the  New  Testament 
and  the  Apocryphal  and  Pseudepigraphical  literature 
of  the  Jews.258 

13.  The  evidence  derived  from  recent  extra-bibli- 
cal studies  shows  that  there  is  no  sufficient  ground  for 
holding  that  the  book  of  Daniel  was  not  written  at 
or  near  Babylon  in  the  latter  part  of  the  sixth  cen- 
tury B.  C.,  as  the  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  book 
itself  indicates.259 

14.  A  thorough  study  of  the  language  of  the  book 
of  Jonah  shows  that  it  was  most  probably  written  in 
the  eighth  century  B.  C.     Since  the  mission  of  the 
prophet  was  to  the  people  of  Nineveh,  there  is  no 
reason  why  he  should  have  given  the  name  of  the 
king  of  Assyria.     The  king  of  Nineveh  may  have 
been  simply  the  mayor  of  the  city.    There  are  two 
good  reasons  why  we  should  not  expect  to  find  the 
repentance  of  the  Ninevites  recorded  on  the  monu- 
ments  of   Assyria.     First,   there   are   very   meager 
documents  of  any  kind  from  the  time  when  Jonah  is 

««  See  PTR  for  1919-21. 

259  See  my  article  on  The  Aramaic  of  Darnel  in  Biblical  and 
Theological  Studies  by  the  Members  of  the  Faculty  of  Princeton 
Theological  Seminary  (Scribner's  1912),  my  Studies  in  the  Book 
of  Darnel  (Putnam's  1916) ;  and  the  PTR  for  1917-1924. 



said  to  have  lived.  Secondly,  the  Assyrian  monarchs 
scarcely  ever  record  anything  prejudicial  to  their  own 
dignity  or  glory.  Lastly,  the  Psalm  in  chapter  ii  is 
not  made  up  of  excerpts  from  late  Psalms;  but 
on  the  contrary  is  one  of  the  most  original  and 
unique  pieces  of  literature  in  existence,  both  as  to 
subject  and  vocabulary.260 

15.  As, to  the  conclusion  of  the  radical  critics  that 
the  books  of  Chronicles,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  are  un- 
reliable, the  following  may  be  said: 

(1)  It  is  based  upon  the  assumption  that  the 
writers  had  as  sources  nothing  but  the  present  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  from  Genesis  to  Kings  in- 
clusive, supplemented  by  certain  post-exilic  works 
which  have  long  since  perished.  Since  it  is  admitted 
by  all  that  the  earlier  documents  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, such  as  J,  E,  D,  Samuel,  Hosea,  Amos  and  the 
sources  of  Kings,  passed  unscathed  through  the  fire 
and  destruction  accompanying  the  fall  of  Samaria 
and  Jerusalem,  it  cannot  be  assumed  that  other  rec- 
ords also  may  not  have  been  preserved.  The 
Chronicler  himself  asserts  that  he  had  access  to  such 
sources,  or  at  least  to  works  derived  from  such 
sources.  No  other  writer  of  the  Old  Testament  cites 
his  authorities  so  frequently  and  so  explicitly.  That 
he  recasts  his  material  in  his  own  style  and  language 
and  with  remarks  and  comments  of  his  own,  no  more 

260  See  articles  on  Jonah  in  PTR  for  1917. 


invalidates  the  reliability  of  his  facts  than  do  similar 
methods  in  the  case  of  Gibbon,  Prescott,  and 
Mommsen.  That  he  inserts  his  own  notes  and  com- 
ments no  more  throws  doubt  on  his  citation  of  facts 
than  is  true  in  the  case  of  the  books  of  Kings. 

Against  the  express  statements  of  authorities  given 
by  the  Chronicler,  what  evidence  have  the  critics  to 
produce?  Nothing  but  conjectures.  Nothing  but  sur- 
mises and  opinions  based  on  their  own  ignorance  and 
the  silence  of  other  records.  Are  the  critics  going  to 
maintain  that  many  works  of  pre-captivity  times  did 
not  survive  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  after- 
wards perish?  How  then  about  the  sources  of  Kings? 
Are  they  going  to  maintain  that  all  the  works  ever 
written  have  been  cited  in  the  books  older  than 
Chronicles,  that  the  Book  of  Jashar  and  the  Book  of 
the  Wars  of  Jehovah  are  the  only  ones  that  have 
disappeared?  How  about  the  three  thousand  prov- 
erbs of  Solomon  and  his  songs  a  thousand  and  five  ?260a 
How  about  the  records  of  the  kings  of  Israel  and 
Judah  as  to  which  it  is  said  so  often  in  Kings  that 
the  rest  of  the  deeds  of  the  kings  were  written  in 
them?  If,  as  Dr.  Driver  says,261  "it  was  not  the 
Chronicler's  intention  to  pervert  the  history/'  why 

2eoa  There  are  only  915  verses  in  our  whole  book  of  Proverbs. 
The  men  of  Hezekiah  extracted  chapters  xxv-xxix  (138  verses) 
from  these  3,000  proverbs  of  Solomon  What  became  of  the 

*«I,OT,  533. 



should  he  have  invented  or  perverted  the  sources 
from  which  he  claims  to  get  his  information?  The 
present-day  critics,  living  just  about  2,300  years  after 
the  Chronicler  wrote  his  books,  may  dispute  about 
his  statements  and  deny  his  facts,  and  even  the 
existence  of  the  documents  which  he  cites;  but  most 
sensible  men  without  preconceived  opinions  will  prob- 
ably agree  with  me  that  the  Chronicler  is  more  likely 
to  have  been  right  and  to  have  told  the  truth,  espe- 
cially about  the  records  which  he  used,  than  any  man 
to-day.  The  testimony  of  the  Chronicler  cannot  be 
overthrown  by  the  opinion  of  anyone  now  living. 

(2)  It  is  not  fair  to  reject  one  or  both  of  two  ap- 
parently irreconcilable  statements  because  we  cannot 
explain  them.  Sometimes  apparent  difficulties  can  be 
removed  by  a  change  of  the  pointing  or  interpretation 
of  the  original  Hebrew.262  Sometimes  the  objections 
are  based  on  an  interpretation  of  the  original  which 
creates  a  discrepancy  where  none  really  exists.208 

282  Thus  atr»?  in  1  Kings  xu.  2  may  be  pointed  and  read  as  "and 
he  returned"  or  as  "and  he  dwelt."  no  in  2  Kings  xxiii.  30 
may  be  rendered  "dying"  rather  than  ''dead"  and  so  be  made  to 
harmonize  with  2  Chron.  xxxv.  24,  where  it  is  said  that  Josiah 
died  in  Jerusalem. 

268  Thus,  it  is  said  that  there  is  an  inexplicable  disagreement 
between  the  account  of  Athaliah's  overthrow  as  given  in  2  Kings 
xi.  4  f  .  and  that  given  in  2  Chron.  xxni.  1  f  .  This  assumed  dis- 
agreement is  based  primarily  upon  the  assumption  that  the  K&ri 
(ns)  and  runners  of  Kings  could  not  have  been  Levites  as 
Chronicles  would  seem  to  demand.  Doubt,  however,  as  to  the 
meaning  of  K&ri  is  manifest,  when  we  see  that  Gesenius,  in  his 
Thesaurus  (671  b),  gives  four  meanings  as  being  upheld  by  va- 



(3)  One  of  the  most  serious  charges  made  against 
the  Chronicler  is  that  he  exaggerates  in  his  numerical 
statements.  Thus,  he  makes  the  army  of  Jeroboam 
I  to  be  800,000  and  that  of  Abijah  400,000;  Zera 
with  1,000,000  men  meets  Asa  with  580,000;  and 
Jehoshaphat  has  an  army  of  1,160,000.  If,  however, 
this  is  an  argument  against  the  historicity  of  Chron- 
icles, it  may  be  used  also  against  Samuel  and  Kings; 
for  the  Philistines  have  30,000  chariots  ( 1  Sam.  xiii. 
5),  David  slew  40,000  horsemen  of  the  Syrians  in 
one  battle  (2  Sam.  x.  18),  Joab  numbered  800,000 
men  of  Israel  and  500,000  of  Judah  (2  Sam.  xxiv. 
9),  Solomon  had  40,000  stalls  of  horses  (1  Kings  v. 
6  [iv.  24]),  Rehoboam  had  180,000  chosen  men 
which  were  warriors  (1  Kings  xii.  21),  and  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  slew  100,000  Syrians  in  one  day  (1 
Kings  xx.  29).  And  it  cannot  be  maintained  that  the 
Chronicler  exaggerated  regularly  the  numbers  as 

rious  scholars,  to  which  may  be  added  several  from  the  versions 
and  one  or  two  from  recent  scholars.  If  we  connect  it  with  the 
Assyrian  karu  "to  cut,"  a  synonym  of  karafy  it  will  be  a  synonym 
of  »rna  and  mean  "executioner"  like  tabbah  in  Gen.  xxxix.  1  If 
we  connect  it  with  the  Assyrian  kararu,  a  synonym  of  eteru  and 
susubu  "to  surround,  either  for  protection  or  capture"  (Muss- 
Arnolt  25  5),  it  might  well  mean  "body-guard."  The  *rfto9  so 
frequently  useVI  with  W3,  may  be  connected  with  the  Assyrian 
pultu,  pastu  "sword."  Compare  Syriac  pusta  "ascia,  secuns." 
That  runners  might  be  Levites,  and  even  priests,  is  shown  by  the 
fact  that  Ahimaaz,  David's  runner,  was  a  son  of  Zadok  the  priest 
(2  Sam.  xviii.  19  f.).  tjntil  the  meaning  of  these  terms  has  been 
fixed,  we  are  justified  merely  in  saying  that  some  of  the  details 
of  the  account  are  not  clear  to  us.  This  does  not  mean  that  they 
are  not  true. 



given  in  Kings,  since  in  the  seventeen  cases  where 
the  numbers  differ  as  between  the  two  books,  the  text 
of  Kings  is  greater  in  five  and  that  of  the  Chronicler 
in  twelve.264 

In  view,  then,  of  the  fact  that  the  prophetical  his- 
tory, as  well  as  the  priestly,  contains  these  large 
enumerations,  it  seems  best  to  maintain  either  that 
the  enumerations  are  correct,  or  that  they  have  been 
corrupted  in  the  course  of  transmission.  We  are  not 
so  sure  as  some  seem  to  be  that  they  are  not  correct. 
We  are  not  to  look  upon  the  armies  of  those  days  as 
composed  of  drilled  troops  like  the  Macedonian 
phalanxes,  or  the  Roman  legions,  but  as  levies  en 
masse.,  embracing  all  the  people  from  about  fourteen 
to  twenty  years  of  age  and  upward,  a  whole  nation  in 
arms.  Every  man  was  interested  in  the  wars,  because 
defeat  meant  death  or  captivity  to  all  alike.  Besides, 
they  were  fighting  at  their  own  doorsteps  and  for 
their  hearths  and  homes.  When  we  think  of  the 
enormous  disciplined  armies  which  single  cities  such 
as  Nineveh,  Damascus,  Tyre,  Ekron,  Gaza,  Sparta, 
and  Rome,  used  to  put  into  the  field,  we  may  well 
pause  before  affirming  with  such  assurance  as  some 
do  that  the  figures  of  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chroni- 

284  In  Sennacherib's  Prism  Inscription  I,  34-50,  there  are  eight 
numerical  statements  In  six  of  these  the  numbers  vary  in  the 
different  versions.  In  the  Babylonian  and  Aramaic  versions  of 
the  Behistun  inscription  of  Darius  the  numbers  differ  in  almost 
every  case.  Yet  these  versions  are  contemporaneous.  See  PTR 
for  1914. 



cles  are  incredible.  But,  if  some  think  they  are  in- 
credible, let  them  remember  that  numbers,  especially 
when  denoted  by  a  system  of  notation,  are  the  hardest 
of  all  facts  to  transmit  correctly.  There  is  usually 
nothing  in  the  context  to  preserve  them  from  corrup- 
tion. They  may  have  been  misread  in  the  original 
sources  or  changed  in  the  course  of  copying;  but  only 
those  who  have  never  engaged  in  the  study  of  manu- 
scripts will  indict  a  whole  document  simply  because 
some  of  the  numerical  notations  are  beyond  the  pos- 
sibility of  being  read  with  certainty  or  accepted  as 

(4)  In  order  to  prove  the  untrustworthiness  of  the 
Chronicler,  an  attempt  is  made  to  show  that  his  work 
was  not  written  till  about  300  B.  C.    The  first  proof 
of  this  is  said  to  be  found  in  1  Chron.  lii.    The  text 
of  this  passage  is  admitted  to  vary  so  much  that  com- 
mentators are  not  sure  whether  six  or  thirteen  genera- 
tions   are   meant.      According   to    Dr.    Driver,    the 
Hebrew  text  gives  six  generations  from  Zerubbabel 
onward.     If  we  place  him  at  520  B.  C.  and  count 
twenty  years  to  a  generation,  this  will  bring  us  to  400 
B.  C.,  as  the  date  of  the  book.    Twenty  years  to  a 
generation  is  a  good  Oriental  average.265 

(5)  It  is  an  absurd  argument   against  the  his- 
toricity of  the  books  of  Chronicles,  that  they  give  in- 
formation not  found  in  the  books  of  Samuel  and 

265  See  Assayuti's  History  of  the  Califs,  where  generations  are 
often  only  for  16  or  18  years. 

13  [193] 


Kings.  Why  should  the  author  have  written  the 
Chronicles  at  all,  if  he  had  had  the  same  design  and 
gave  the  same  information  as  the  authors  of  Samuel 
and  Kings ?  It  is  perfectly  proper  and  natural,  also, 
that  he  should  have  written  especially  about  Levites, 
singers  and  festivals;  since,  as  the  critics  rightly 
affirm,  he  was  looking  at  things  from  a  priestly  stand- 

No  one  can  deny  that  the  temple  was  built  by 
Solomon,  and  that  the  plans  and,  in  large  measure, 
the  materials  for  the  structure  were  prepared  by 
David.  This  temple  was  intended  for  the  worship  of 
the  God  of  Israel.  This  worship  consisted  in  sacri- 
fices, prayers  and  praises.  The  service  required  large 
numbers  of  priests,  servants  and  singers;  and  they 
must  have  been  organized,  so  that  everything  should 
be  conducted  in  decency  and  order.  The  Chronicles 
say  that  David  organized  these  services  of  the 
temple.  Why  deny  that  he  did  this  most  sensible  and 
fitting  thing? 

Now,  when  this  temple  was  first  built,  all  that 
would  be  necessary  would  be  to  take  over  the  priests 
and  the  ritual  already  in  existence  and  vary  them 
only  in  so  far  as  was  required  to  meet  the  new  con- 
ditions of  an  enlarged  and  more  dignified  place  of 
worship.  The  old  priesthood  of  the  temple  at  Shiloh 
and  the  old  laws  of  the  tabernacle  with  reference  to 
sacrifices  and  festivals  would  be  found  sufficient; 
but  to  make  the  service  more  efficient  and  suitable 



to  the  great  glory  o£  the  magnificent  house  that  had 
been  erected  for  the  God  of  Israel,  certain  new- 
regulations  as  to  the  time  and  manner  of  the  services 
were  instituted  by  David.  Whatever  is  not  referred 
to  as  having  originated  with  him  must  be  presumed 
to  have  been  already  in  existence. 

Since  David  and  Solomon  built  the  temple,  it  is 
common  sense  to  suppose  that  they  organized  the 
priests  into  regular  orders  for  the  orderly  service  of 
the  sanctuary.  These  priests  had  already  had  their 
clothing  prescribed  by  Moses  after  the  analogy  of 
the  Egyptian  and  all  other  orders  of  priesthood  the 
world  over.  He  also  had  prescribed  the  kinds  and 
times  of  offerings  and  the  purpose  for  which  they 
were  offered.  The  Israelites,  also,  like  the  Egyptians 
and  Babylonians,  had  for  their  festive  occasions  such 
regulations  as  are  attributed  to  David  for  the  observ- 
ance of  these  festivals,  so  as  to  avoid  confusion  and 
to  preserve  decency  in  the  house  of  God. 


Is  it  to  be  supposed  that  on  these  festive  occasions 
no  music  was  to  be  employed  and  no  hymns  of  praise 
to  God  to  be  sung?  Even  the  most  savage  tribes 
have  music  at  their  festivals  and  we  know  that  the 
ancient  Egyptians  had  numerous  hymns  to  Amon  and 
other  gods,  and  that  the  Assyrians  and  Babylonians, 
and  even  the  Sumerians  before  them,  delighted  in 
singing  psalms  of  praise  and  penitence  as  a  part  of 



their  ritual  of  worship.266  These  hymns  in  all  cases 
were  accompanied  by  instrumental  music.  Some  of 
the  Sumerian,  Babylonian  and  Egyptian  hymns  were 
current  in  writing  for  hundreds,  or  even  thousands, 
of  years  before  the  time  of  Solomon;  and  some 
musical  instruments  had  existed  for  the  same  length 
of  time.  Are  we  to  suppose  that  the  Hebrews  alone 
among  the  nations  of  antiquity  had  no  vocal  and  in- 
strumental music  in  their  temple  services?  The 
critics  maintain  that  poetry  is  the  earliest  form  of 
expression  of  a  people's  thoughts  and  history.  Many 
of  them  assert  that  the  song  of  Deborah  antedates 
all  other  literary  productions  in  the  Bible.  Most  of 
them  will  admit  that  David  composed  the  lament  over 
Saul  and  Jonathan. 

But  they  draw  the  line  at  his  Psalms  of  praise  and 
penitence.267  Why?  Because  it  suits  their  theory 
that  the  Psalms  were  prepared  for  use  in  the  second 
temple.  They  hold  at  the  same  time  that  certain 
poems,  like  the  songs  of  Deborah  and  Miriam  and 

2fleSee  the  long  list  of  hymns  to  Amon  and  Aton  given  in 
Breasted's  Egypt,  V,  133.  The  authors  of  some  of  these  hymns 
are  given.  Id.  Thotmes  III  and  Merenptah,  kings  of  Egypt,  both 
wrote  hymns.  Id.  Assurbampal,  king  of  Assyria,  also  wrote  hymns. 
See  Streck's  Assurbanipal  III,  342  f .  That  the  ancient  Sumerians 
at,  or  before,  the  time  of  Abraham  sometimes  gave  the  name  of 
the  author  of  a  psalm  may  be  seen  in  Langdon's  Sumerian  and 
Babylonian  Psalms,  pp  287,  317. 

267  See  pages  229-239  of  Frank's  Studien  sur  Babylonischen 
Religion,  Langdon's  Sumerian  and  Babylonian  Psalms;  Erman's 
Aegypten  vnd  Aegyptisches  Leben  im  Altertum,  II,  350-412; 
Wilkinson,  The  Ancient  Egyptians,  I,  431-500. 



the  blessings  of  Jacob  and  Moses,  antedate  by  cen- 
turies the  historical  narratives  in  which  they  are 
found,  but  that  the  Psalms  were  all,  or  nearly  all, 
composed  after  the  captivity.  What  grounds  have 
they  for  holding  such  seemingly  inconsistent  theories  ? 
Absolutely  none  that  is  based  on  any  evidence,  unless 
the  wish  to  have  it  so,  in  order  to  bolster  up  their 
conception  of  the  history  of  Israel's  religion,  be 
called  evidence. 




Of  course,  it  is  obvious  that  music  is  mentioned  in 
the  books  of  Kings;  but  it  is  made  prominent  in 
Chronicles,  and  the  headings  of  many  of  the  Psalms 
attribute  them  to  David  and  in  three  cases  to  Moses 
or  Solomon.  It  is  hardly  to  be  supposed  that  the 
writer  of  these  headings  would  have  made  his  work 
absurd  by  making  statements  that  his  contemporaries 
would  have  known  to  be  untrue.  Whether  the  head- 
ings are  all  trustworthy,  or  not,  it  is  absurd  to  sup- 
pose that  the  writers  of  them  would  have  attributed 
so  many  of  the  Psalms  to  pre-captivity  authors,  when 
their  contemporaries  must  have  known  that  the  whole 
body  of  Psalms  had  arisen  after  the  fall  of  the  first 
temple,  had  such  been  actually  the  case.  The  most 
natural  supposition  would  be  that  David  either  made 
or  collected  a  sufficient  number  of  Psalms  to  meet  the 



requirements  of  worship  in  the  temple  which  Solo- 
mon was  about  to  build. 

As  to  the  text  of  the  headings  of  the  Psalms,  the 
evidence  of  the  manuscripts  and  versions  goes  to 
show  that  they  are  not  merely  substantially  the  same 
as  they  were  in  the  third  century  B.  C.,  but  that  most 
of  them  must  even  then  have  been  hoary  with  age. 
Even  when  the  Septuagint  version  was  made,  the 
meanings  of  many  of  the  terms  used  in  the  headings 
were  already  unknown,  and  the  significance  of  many 
words  and  phrases  had  passed  out  of  mind.  A  large 
proportion  of  the  names  is  not  to  be  found  in  later 
Hebrew  and  in  no  Aramaic  dialect  Besides  the 
roots  of  many  of  these  words  have  closer  analogies 
in  Babylonian  than  in  any  other  language. 

All  this  would  suggest  that  their  origin  must  go 
back  to  the  times  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  or  to  the 
captivity;  and  that  they,  in  whole  or  in  part,  came 
down  from  the  usages  and  administration  of  Solo- 
mon's temple.  There  is  no  reason  for  supposing  that 
the  Psalms  and  their  headings  may  not  have  been 
present  intact  through  all  the  confusion  and  destruc- 
tion of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  inasmuch  as  the  sources 
of  Samuel  and  Kings  (and  the  works  of  most  of  the 
prophets)  were  admittedly  so  present  Besides,  the 
Hebrew  manuscripts  and  all  of  the  great  ancient 
primary  versions  agree  almost  absolutely  with  the 
text  of  our  ordinary  Hebrew  bibles  and  their  Eng- 
lish versions  in  attributing  seventy-three  of  the 



Psalms  to  David  as  the  author  or  subject  of  the  re- 
spective Psalms.  The  Greek  edition  of  Swete  agrees 
in  attributing  to  David  every  one  of  the  seventy-three. 
The  edition  of  the  Latin  Gallican  version  of 
Harden268  (Psalterium  juxta  Hebraeos  Hieronymi, 
edited  with  introduction  and  Apparatus  Criticus  by 
J.  M.  Harden,  D.D.,  LL-D.,  Trinity  College,  Dublin; 
London,  The  Macmillan  Co.,  1922)  agrees  in  all  but 
the  twenty-second;  where,  however,  E  and  H,  two 
of  the  best  manuscripts,  do  agree.  The  Syriac- 
Peshitto  version  of  Walton's  Polyglot  agrees  in  re- 
gard to  all,  except  the  13th,  39th  and  the  124th.268a 
And  the  Aramaic  of  Walton's  Polyglot  ascribes  to 
David  every  one  of  the  seventy-three,  except  the  122d, 
the  131st,  and  the  133d. 

It  will  be  noted  that  all  the  five  texts,  the  Hebrew 
and  its  four  great  ancient  versions,  agree  that  sixty- 
six  out  of  the  seventy-three  psalms  were  either  writ- 

268  Temples  imply  both  singers  and  songs.  In  2  Sam.  xxii.  1, 
David  is  said  to  have  spoken  the  words  of  the  eighteenth  psalm. 
In  2  Sam  xxiii.  1,  he  is  called  the  sweet  psalmist  of  Israel. 
Critics  generally  admit  that  he  wrote  the  lament  over  Saul  and 
Jonathan.  Why  then  may  he  not  have  written  the  psalms  at- 
tributed to  him  in  the  headings  of  the  psalms?  And  why  may  not 
he,  like  Watts  and  Cooper  and  Wesley  and  Havergal,  have  him- 
self produced,  or  at  least  collected,  a  whole  psalm  book?  The 
temple  requires  singers;  singers  require  songs;  David  supplies 
songs.  Chronicles  and  the  headings  of  the  psalms  state  that  the 
Israelites  had  in  the  Psalms  of  David  and  the  singers  of  the  temple 
just  what  common  sense  demands  that  they  must  have  had. 

aesajn  the  case  of  Psalms  55  and  62  David  occurs  in  the 
headings,  though  he  is  not  specifically  stated  to  have  been  the 



ten  by,  or  for,  or  concerning  David268b  (the  Hebrew 
preposition  /  may  mean  "by,"  "for/'  or  "concern- 
ing"), and  that  four  out  of  five  of  these  agree  in 
regard  to  all  the  seventy-three. 

Finally,  a  striking  and  almost  convincing  testimony 
for  the  early  date  of  most  of  the  psalms  lies  in  the 
fact  that,  except  in  a  very  few  cases,  we  find  no  defi- 
nite allusions  in  them  to  events  or  persons  later  than 
the  time  of  Solomon. 

Thus,  common  sense  and  universal  analogy  compel 
us  to  believe  that  an  orderly  worship  conducted  by 
priests  in  accordance  with  prescribed  regulations  and 
a  service  of  song  commensurate  with  the  dignity  and 
decency  becoming  the  house  of  God  must  have 
existed  among  the  Hebrews,  certainly  from  the  time 
that  the  first  temple  was  constructed  and  probably 
from  the  time  that  the  tabernacle  was  erected  and 
the  annual  festivals  established.  Historians  of  royal 
courts,  of  diplomacy  and  war,  like  the  author  of  the 
books  of  Kings,  may  not  mention  such  things;  but 
we  may  be  sure  that  they  existed.  The  temple  itself 
proves  this.  Universal  experience  proves  it  The 
weeping  stone  at  the  foundation  of  the  temple,  where 
the  Jews  of  to-day  congregate  to  bewail  the  long  de- 

268bThe  detailed  evidence  as  to  the  headings  of  the  Psalms 
has  appeared  in  the  PTR  for  January  and  July,  1926,  where  the 
secondary  versions  of  the  Septuagint—  the  Memphitic  and  the 
Sahidic  Coptic,  the  Harklensian  Synac  and  the  Syro-Palestinian, 
the  Ethiopic,  the  Arabic,  the  Armenian,  and  the  I^itra  Vulgate  have 
also  been  considered. 



parted  glories  of  Mount  Zion  and  the  glorious  house 
of  Israel's  God,  testifies  that  the  traditions  about  the 
sweet  Psalmist  of  Israel  were  not  all  figments  of  the 
imagination,  nor  mythical  creations  of  later  times. 

(6)  Another  proof  of  the  lateness  of  the  Chroni- 
cler is  said  to  be  the  mention  of  Jaddua  as  High 
Priest  in  Neh.  xii.  11,  22.  It  is  assumed  that  this 
Jaddua  is  the  same  as  the  one  mentioned  by 
Josephus209  as  the  High  Priest  who  went  out  to  meet 
Alexander  when  he  went  up  to  Jerusalem.  Inasmuch 
as  this  expedition  of  Alexander  is  recorded  by  Jose- 
phus alone  and  said  by  the  critics  never  to  have  oc- 
curred, and  as  the  particular  Jaddua  who  is  said  by 
Josephus  to  have  met  Alexander  is  mentioned  no- 
where else  either  by  Josephus  or  by  any  other  ancient 
writer,  we  fail  to  see  the  force  of  this  argument. 
For,  if  Josephus  invented  the  story  about  Alexander, 
he  may  have  invented  his  Jaddua,  too.  But  granting 
that  there  was  a  Jaddua  at  336  B.  C.,  or  thereabout, 
we  fail  to  see  why  he  may  not  have  been  High  Priest 
for  seventy  or  even  eighty  years.  Having  had  a 
great-grandfather  who  lived  to  be  hale  and  hearty  at 
105,  and  a  great-grandmother  to  be  99,  and  three 
great-uncles  to  be  94,  96  and  101  respectively,  with 
about  a  dozen  other  relatives,  no  farther  away  than 
a  great-uncle,  who  lived  to  be  from  75  to  92,  and  all 
compos  mentis,  and  most  active  in  body  till  almost 

***  Antiquities,  XI.  viii,  4. 



the  end,  the  writer  of  this  article  can  see  nothing  im- 
probable in  the  Jaddua  of  Josephus  having  been  the 
same  as  the  Jaddua  of  Ezra. 

(7)  The  newest  weapon  of  proof,  however,  that 
has  been  forged  against  the  historicity  of  the  Chroni- 
cler is  that  which  has  been  produced  in  the  arsenal 
of  Oxford  by  Drs.  Driver  and  Gray.     The  great 
German  critic  Ewald  asserted  that  it  was  both  un- 
necessary and  contrary  to  contemporary  usage  for  the 
kings  of  Persia  to  be  given  the  title,  king  of  Persia, 
while  as  yet  there  were  kings  of  Persia;    and  that 
consequently  the  Hebrew  documents  employing  this 
title  must  have  been  written  after  kings  of  Persia  had 
ceased  to  exist.    If  this  were  absolutely  true,  it  would 
bring    down   to    Greek   times    the    composition    of 
Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah  and  Daniel,  since  they 
all  contain  the  title.    It  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  this 
assertion  to  say  tHat  eighteen  different  authors  in 
nineteen  different  documents  from  Persian  times  use 
this  title  altogether  thirty-eight  different  times,  and 
of  at  least  six  different  Persian  kings;  that  it  is  used 
of  Cyrus  seven  years  before  the  conquest  of  Babylon 
in  539  B.  C.  and  of  Artaxerxes  III  about  365  B.  C; 
that  it  is  used  in  Persian,  Susian,  Babylonian,  Greek, 
Aramaic  and  Hebrew;   that  it  was  used  in  Media, 
Babylonia,  Asia  Minor,  Greece,  and  Palestine,  and 
according  to  Herodotus  in  Ethiopia;   and  that  it  is 
used  in  letters,  dates  and  other  like  documents  of  the 
Scriptures  just  as  it  is  used  in  the  extra-biblical  docu- 



ments.  Further,  it  has  been  shown  that  it  was  not 
common  for  authors  of  the  Greek  period  to  use  the 

270  See  my  articles  in  the  PTR  for  1904-5  and  for  1917,  and 
in  the  Sachau  Denkschnft,  Berlin,  1912. 





BEFORE    closing    this    succinct    review    o£   the 
lines  of  defense  of  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
tures, we  must  emphasize  briefly  the  strongest 
bulwark  of  them  all,  the  undeniable  uniqueness  and 
superlative  clearness  and  importance  of  the  religious 
ideas  contained  in  them. 

A  study  of  the  religious  systems  of  the  Egyptians, 
Babylonians,  and  other  ancient  peoples,  has  revealed 
to  us  a  groping  after  God,  if  haply  they  might  find 
him;  but  nowhere  among  all  the  nations  is  it  re- 
corded that  a  clear  apprehension  of  one  living  and 
true  God — the  creator  and  preserver,  the  guide,  the 
judge,  the  saviour,  and  the  sanctifier  of  His  people — 
was  attained.  Other  religions  are  outward,  con- 
cerned with  words  and  deeds.  Their  sins  are  offenses 
or  delinquencies,  their  substitutions  are  material 
equivalents,  their  atonements  are  physical  purifica- 
tions, their  resurrection  is  a  groundless  expectation, 
their  judgment  is  without  mercy,  their  immortality 
consigns  to  darkness  and  dust,  and  a  future  life  of 
joy  is  at  best  for  the  few  and  great.  The  Old  Testa- 
ment religion  is  essentially  inward.  It  is  the  religion 
of  the  mind  and  heart,  of  love,  joy,  -faith,  hope,  and 
salvation  through  the  grace  of  God  alone.  How  ac- 



count  for  this  religion?    It  must  have  come  either  by 
derivation,   evolution  or  revelation.     The  prophets 
say  it  came  from  God.    No  other  theory  of  its  origin 
can  account  for  its  uniqueness  and  its  results,  its 
superiority  and  its  influence.    The  prophets  and  their 
ideas  are  facts  in  evidence,  which  all  the  quibbling  of 
the  critics  cannot  impugn.     The  prophets  say  they 
had  their  ideas  from  God.    If  not,  whence?    It  can- 
not have  come  by  derivation;   for  none  of  the  other 
nations  had  the  same  ideas  of  God,  creation,  sin  and 
redemption.271    If  it  came  by  revelation,  the  greatest 
of  all  miracles  has  happened  involving  all  the  rest. 
For  if  God  spake  through  the  prophets,  His  revela- 
tions of  His  will  could  not  have  been  bound  by  the 
shackles  of  time  and  circumstance.     The  prophets 
who  spake  for  Him  spake  not  merely  as  the  men  of 
their  own  time,  but  as  men  of  all  time,  as  men  who 
were  spokesmen  of  Him  who  knows  the  end  from 
the  beginning,  and  has  all  power  in  heaven  and  on 
earth.    The  canon  of  the  modern  critical  school  that 
treats  the  prophets  as  the  creatures  of  their  time  is 
antagonistic  to  this  fundamental  conception  of  the 
prophets'  mission  as  it  was  enunciated  by  the  prophets 
themselves.     They  say  God  spake  to  them  and  they 
spake  for  God.    The  critics  say  that  they  gave  utter- 
ance to  the  spirit  of  the  times  (the  Zeitgeist)  and 

271  That  it  could  not  have  been  derived  from  the  Babylonians* 
see  my  articles  in  the  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review  for 
1902  and  the  Btble  Student  for  1904. 



that  they  were  limited  by  the  time  and  place  of  their 
birth.  But,  if  this  were  all  the  source  of  their  in- 
formation, how  then  did  it  come,  that  not  from  the 
oracles  of  Thebes  and  Memphis,  nor  from  the  temples 
of  Babylon,  nor  from  the  sacred  precincts  of  Delphi, 
nor  from  the  Sibyls  and  augurs  of  Rome,  but  from 
the  deserts  of  Midian,  and  from  the  sheepfolds  of 
Tekoa,  and  from  the  dungeons  of  Zedekiah,  and 
from  the  lowly  cots  of  captives  on  the  banks  of  the 
Chebar  and  the  Euphrates,  came  forth  those  magic 
words  of  hope  and  salvation  and  glory  for  a  sm- 
cursed  world  that  have  made  the  desert  hearts  of  all 
who  heard  them  to  rejoice  and  blossom  like  the  rose 
in  the  sunlight  of  God's  favor,  in  the  revivifying 
atmosphere  of  His  presence?  God  with  us!  This 
is  the  key  to  unlock  the  mysterious  chambers  of  the 
Old  Testament. 

14  [209] 



BUT  the  time  has  come  to  conclude  this  sum- 
mary of  evidence  for  the  defense  in  the  case 
of  the  critics  against  the  Old  Testament.  We 
hope  that  the  evidence  adduced  will  be  sufficient  to 
show  that  the  general  reliability  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment documents  has  not  been  impaired  by  recent  dis- 
coveries outside  the  Old  Testament.  The  literary 
forms  are  in  harmony  with  what  comparative  litera-. 
ture  would  lead  us  to  expect.  The  civil,  criminal  and 
constitutional  laws  agree  with  what  the  civilization 
of  the  ancient  nations  surrounding  Palestine  would 
presuppose;  while  the  ceremonial,  moral,  and  reli- 
gious laws  are  differentiated  from  those  of  others  by 
their  genesis  in  a  monotheistic  belief  and  a  divine 
revelation.  The  use  of  writing  in  the  age  of  Moses 
and  Abraham  is  admitted  by  all  and  the  existence  of 
the  Hebrew  language  in  the  time  of  the  Exodus  is 
assured  by  the  glosses  of  the  Amarna  letters,  as  well 
as  by  the  proper  names  on  the  Egyptian  and  Baby- 
lonian monuments  The  general  correctness  of  the 
Hebrew  text  that  has  been  transmitted  to  us  is  estab- 
lished beyond  just  grounds  of  controversy.  The 
morphology,  syntax,  and  meaning  of  the  language 
of  the  various  books  conform  with  what  the  face  of 
the  documents  demands.  The  chronological  and 



geographical  statements  are  more  accurate  and  re- 
liable than  those  afforded  by  any  other  ancient  docu- 
ments; and  the  biographical  and  other  historical 
narratives  harmonize  marvelously  with  the  evidence 
afforded  by  extra-biblical  documents. 

We   therefore   send  this  volume   forth  with  the 
prayer  that  it  may  strengthen  the  faith  of  those  who 
still  believe  in  God  and  in  Jesus  Christ  His  Son.  We 
need  not  and  do  not  fear  the  truth  about  the  Bible. 
We  welcome  all   sincere   and  honest   study   of  its 
origin,  purpose  and  meaning.    But  is  it  too  much  to 
ask  and  hope  that  more  of  those  who  have  been  ap- 
pointed by  the  Church  to  teach  its  history  and  its 
doctrines  should  devote  their  time  and  energies  to  the 
defense  of  its  great  and  fundamental,  unique  and  out- 
standing, facts  and  implications,  rather  than  to  the 
picking  of  flaws  in  the  garments  of  the  prophets  and 
to  the  punching  of  holes  in  the  robe  of  Christ's  per- 
fection?   It  may  not  be  ours  to  remove  all  the  diffi- 
culties, to  harmonize  all  the  apparent  inconsistencies, 
to  explain  all  the  mysteries,  and  to  solve  all  the 
problems  of  the  Old  Testament;   but  we  can  show 
at  least,  that  we  believe  that  Christ  and  the  Apostles 
are  more  likely  to  be  right  than  we,  that  the  age-long 
judgment  of  the  Church  with  respect  to  the  Bible 
may  after  all  be  right,  and  that  our  business  is  to 
defend  with  all  lawful  means  the  citadel  of   faith 
rather  than  to  join  the  hosts  of  the  infidel  in  the 
assaults  upon  its  walls. 




To  make  this  work  of  greater  help  to  the  average  reader 
not  acquainted  with  the  technical  terms  of  Biblical  criti- 
cism and  philology,  this  glossary  has  been  prepared  in  ex- 
planation of  some  of  the  more  important  of  these  terms. 

Acliaemenid.  Achaemenes  was  the  great-grandfather 
of  Darius  the  Great,  king  of  Persia  in  the  days  of 
Marathon,  522  to  486  B  C.  The  Persian  kings  of 
this  dynasty  are  called  Achaemenids. 

Ashurbanipal.  Ashurbanipal  was  the  last  great  king  of 
Assyria  and  reigned  from  666  to  626  B.  C.  The  best 
work  on  him  is  in  three  volumes  by  Streck. 

Bar  Hebraeus.  Bar-Hebraeus,  or  Abu'l-Faraj  Gregory, 
was  a  Jewish  convert  to  Christianity  and  "one  of  the 
most  learned  and  versatile  men  that  Syria  ever  pro- 
duced." (See  Wright:  Syriac  Literature,  265-281  ) 
The  account  of  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem  will  be 
found  in  the  Chronicon  Syriacum  (263-266),  sold  by 
Maissoneuve,  Paris. 

Behistun.  Behistun,  the  ancient  Bagistana,  is  the  name 
of  a  village  on  the  highway  between  Babylonia  and 
Ecbatana  (Hamadan),  the  capital  of  Media.  On  the 
face  of  a  rock  500  feet  above  the  plain  are  inscrip- 
tions of  Darius  the  Great  in  Persian,  Klamitic  and 
Babylonian.  (See  Eduard  Meyer  in  Encyclopedia 
Brittanica,  III,  656;  Weissbach  arid  Bang:  Die 
altpersischen  Keilinschriften,  1893 ;  King  and  Thomp- 
son :  The  Inscription  of  Darius  the  Great  at  Behistun, 
1907;  and  works  by  Prof  A.  V.  Williams  Jackson.) 
'An  Aramaic  recension  of  this  inscription  was  found 
in  Egypt  and  published  by  Edouard  Sachau  in  his 
Aramaische  Papyrus  und  Ostraka,  1911.  [Reviewed 


by  the  writer  in  the  PTR  for  1914  ]  It  is  to  be  found 
also  in  Cowley's  Aramaic  Papyri  of  the  Fifth  Century 
B.  C. 

Ben  Sira.  Name  of  the  writer  of  the  apocryphal  book 
of  Ecclesiasticus. 

Cartouches.  A  cartouche  is  an  oval  or  oblong  figure  in 
an  Egyptian  document,  containing  the  name  of  a  sov- 

Consonantal  Text.  Only  the  consonants  and,  in  some 
cases,  the  vowel  letters  w  to  denote  6  and  u  and  3;  to 
denote  e  and  i,  were  used  in  the  Old  Testament  text 
before  about  A.  D.  600,  at  which  time  vowel  signs 
were  added. 

Dim.  Sumerian  word  for  create  and  make.  (See  De- 
litzsch:  Sumerisches  Glossar,  p.  138) 

Elephantine.  Elephantine  was  the  name  of  a  city  on 
an  island  at  the  first  cataract  of  the  Nile.  Its  name 
denotes  elephant  in  the  Egyptian  abu,  as  well  as  in  the 
Greek  from  which  the  English  is  merely  a  translitera- 
tion Opposite  the  island  was  the  city  of  Syene  or 
Assouan.  It  is  about  551  miles  by  rail  from  Cairo. 

Gloss.  An  explanatory  word  or  phrase.  In  the  Amarna 
Letters  the  Hebrew  glosses  explain  the  Babylonian 

Grimm's  Law.  Grimm's  law  is  the  name  for  the  regular 
interchange  of  certain  consonants  in  the  so-called 
Indo-European  family  of  languages.  See  Max  Mul- 
ler's  Lectures  on  the  Science  of  Language,  II.  Lec- 
ture V,  Skeat's  Principles  of  English  Etymology,  p. 
104,  and  Whitney's  Language  and  the  Study  of  Lan- 

Hammurabi.  Hammurabi  (or  pi)  "the  mighty  king, 
the  king  of  Babylon,  the  king  of  the  four  quarters/' 
as  he  calls  himself  (see  King:  The  Letters  and  In- 
scriptions of  Hammurabi,  p.  179),  seems  at  first  to 
have  been  subject  to  Elam,  whose  king  he  overthrew 
in  his  thirty-first  year  (id  23). 



Hapax  Legomena.     Words  occurring  once  only  in  a 


Hexateuch.    First  six  books  of  the  Bible.    Writers  on 
the  first  six  books  of  the  Old  Testament  commonly 
employ  the  letters  H,  P,  J,  E,  D,  to  denote  the  five 
sources  of  these  books  as  claimed  by  the  critics, 
P  denotes  the  so-called  priest-codex,  which  is  sup- 
posed to  have  been  written  after  the  time  of  Eze- 
kiel.    Broadly,  it  embraces  all  of  Leviticus,  except 
chapters  xvii-xxvi,  nearly  all  of  Numbers,  a  large 
part  especially  of  the  latter  part  of  Exodus,  parts 
of  Genesis  (especially  the  first  chapter),  and  about 
a  third  of  Joshua. 

H  is  named  from  holiness   (HeiUgkeit)  and  gets  its 

name  from  the  fact  that  it  emphasizes  the  laws  of 

holiness.    It  is  found  in  Leviticus  xvii-xxvi.    It  is 

supposed  to  have  been  written  during  the  captivity. 

D  stands  for  Deuteronomy,  and  embraces  most  of 

Deuteronomy  and  about  a  third  of  Joshua. 
J  comes  from  the  word  Jehovah,  and  embraces  a 
large  part  of  Genesis  and  Exodus  i-xix,  character- 
ized by  having  the  name  Jehovah  in  it. 
E  comes  from  Elohim  the  Hebrew  name  for  God, 
arid  includes  the  parts  of  the  Hexateuch  which 
contain  the  name  Elohim  for  God  and  which  do 
not  belong  to  P. 
JE  stands  for  the  parts  in  which  J  and  E  cannot  be 

Hiphil.    Name  of  a  Hebrew  verbal  form  which  usually 

has  a  causative  sense. 

Jonathan.  Name  given  the  version  of  the  pseudony- 
mous author  of  a  second  Aramaic  version  of  the 
books  of  Moses. 

Joshua  the  Stylite.    Joshua  the  Stylite  was  a  Mono- 

physite  Stylite  monk  who  lived  at  Edessa  in  the  early 

part  of  the  6th  century  and  wrote  a  history  of  the 

war  between  the  Byzantine  and  Persian  empires  which 



took  place  from  502  to  506  A.  D.  See  Wright's 
Syriac  Literature,  pp.  77,  78,  and  his  work  called  The 
Chronicle  of  Joshua  the  Stylite. 

Mantis.    A  sort  of  prophet-priest  of  the  Greeks. 

Massorites  (or  Massoretes).  Jewish  scribes  and  learned 
men  who  edited  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 

Mesha  Inscription.  The  Mesha  inscription,  also  called 
the  Moabite  stone,  contains  an  inscription  by  Mesha, 
King  of  Moab,  and  was  found  by  a  missionary  named 
Klein  among  the  ruins  of  the  city  of  Dibon  in  the 
land  of  Moab  in  the  year  1868.  It  has  been  treated  in 
monographs  by  Smend,  Clermont-Ganneau,  Noldeke, 
Nordlander,  and  others.  The  text  will  be  found  in 
Lidzbarski's  Nordsemitische  Epigraphik. 

Moabite  Stone.    See  Mesha  Inscription  above. 

Morphology.    The  science  of  the  forms  of  wofds. 

Nabunaid  (or  Nabonidus).  Name  of  the  last  de  facto 
and  de  jure  king  of  Babylon  according  to  the  monu- 
ments ;  Belshazzar  according  to  the  Scriptures  being 
the  last  de  facto  king. 

Onkelos.  Name  of  the  author  of  the  best  Aramaic  ver- 
sion of  ^  the  books  of  Moses.  The  version  is  named 
after  him. 

Ostraka.  Fragments  of  pottery  on  which  are  Hebrew, 
Greek,  or  Coptic  inscriptions. 

Paleography.  Ancient  ways  of  indicating  words  in 
writing,  and  the  study  or  art  of  deciphering  them. 

Peshitto.    See  Versions. 

Pointings,  Signs  adde'd  to  the  original  consonantal  text 
in  order  to  indicate  the  sound  or  the  sense  of  the 
original  according  to  the  view  of  the  exegete  or 

Preformatives  and  Sufformatives.    Semitic  roots  have 

commonly  three  consonantal  letters.    Many  nouns  and 

forms  of  the  verb  are  formed  from  these  roots  by 

putting  a  consonant  before  or  after.    When  placed  be- 



fore,  the  consonant  is  called  a  pref ormative ;  when 
af  ter^  a  stiff  ormative. 

Prosthetic.  A  letter,  commonly  Aleph,  prefixed  to 
another  with  e  or  a  to  aid  in  the  pronunciation.  Thus 
in  Ashtpra  for  Shtora  and  in  Ahasuerus  the  A  is 

Protasis.  The  clause  introduced  by  "if,"  "when,"  "who- 
ever," etc.,  upon  which  the  main  proposition  depends. 
Thus  "if  you  love  me"  is  the  protasis  of  which  "ye 
will  keep  my  commandments"  is  the  apodosis. 

Provenance.  The  locality  at  which  any  antique  is 
found  or  document  was  written. 

Pseudepigraph.  A  writing  ascribed  to  one  who  'did  not 
write  it.  In  works  on  the  Canon  it  is  commonly  re- 
stricted to  documents  which  are  not  in  the  canon  of 
the  Roman  Catholics.  Apocryphal  are  the  books  ac- 
knowledged by  the  Roman  Catholics,  but  not  by  Prot- 

Pyramid  Texts.  Die  Pyramidentexte  is  the  name  given 
to  a  series  of  Egyptian  inscriptions  found  in  the  pyra- 
mids. They  have  been  published  in  the  "Recueil  de 
travaux  relatifs  a  la  philologie  et  d  I'arcMologie 
egyptienne  <et  assyrienne"  The  first  of  these  texts 
were  those  found  in  the  pyramid  of  King  Ounas  the 
last  king  of  the  Sth  dynasty.  They  were  edited  by 
Maspero  and  published  in  1882. 

Radical  Sounds.  The  three  consonants  used  in  a  root 
are  called  radicals. 

Recension.  A  text  established  by  revision  and  editing, 
either  by  the  author  or  by  another.  Thus,  there  is  a 
longer  recension  of  Jeremiah  preserved  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible  and  a  shorter  in  the  Greek ;  and  there  are  two 
recensions  of  the  ten  commandments,  one  in  Exodus 
xx  and  one  in  Deuteronomy  v.  So,  there  are  at  least 
two  recensions  of  the  inscription  of  Darius  at  Be- 
histun,  the  longer  being  that  contained  in  the  Persian, 
of  which  the  Elamite  is  apparently  a  translation,  and 

the  shorter  in  the  Babylonian  which  is  fairly  equiva- 
lent to  the  Aramaic.  The  first  three  are  certainly  and 
the  Aramaic  probably  from  the  same  time  and  have 
the  same  authority.  Sometimes  we  speak  of  the  whole 
four  as  recensions. 

Redactors.  Editors  who  put  together  and  supplemented 
the  original  parts  of  the  Pentateuch. 

Sachau  Papyri.  The  Sachau  Papyri  (or  Papyrus)  are 
Aramaic  documents  (mostly  letters  and  contracts,  but 
containing  also  a  short  edition  of  the  Behistun  inscrip- 
tion of  Darius  the  Great,  king  of  Persia,  and  part  of 
a  story  of  a  man  called  Achikar)  edited  by  Prof. 
Edouard  Sachau  of  the  University  of  Berlin.  (See 
my  review  in  the  PTR  for  1911.) 

Samaritan.  Here  used  for  the  version  of  the  books  of 
Moses  into  the  Samaritan  dialect  of  the  Aramaic. 
This  version  is  still  used  by  a  small  number  of  per- 
sons residing  in  the  modern  city  of  Nabkms. 

Samaritan  Version.    See  Versions. 

Sendschirli  Inscriptions.  Six  inscriptions  in  the  Send- 
schirli  dialect  are  published  in  Lidzbarski's  Nordse- 
mitische  Hpigraphik.  The  first  of  these,  embracing  34 
lines,  is  by  Panammu,  king  of  Jadi  and  Sam'al,  and 
the  second,  third  and  fourth  by  his  son  Barrekeb.  The 
others  are  small  fragments. 

Siloah  Inscription.  The  Siloah  inscription  in  Hebrew 
was  found  in  1880  on  a  wall  of  the  conduit  built  by 
Hezekiah  (Isa.  xxii.  11).  It  is  the  oldest  inscription 
of  ^  any  length  in  the  Hebrew  language.  See  Lidzbar- 
ski:  Nordsemitische  Inschriften. 

Sumerian.  Name  of  the  people  who  preceded  the  Sem- 
ites in  Babylon  and  apparently  invented  the  system 
of  writing  afterward  used  by  the  Assyrians,  Baby- 
lonians, Hittites  and  others. 

Suras.    Name  for  the  chapters  of  the  Koran. 

Syriac.    The  name   given  to  the  dialect  of  Aramaic 
spoken  in  Mesopotamia  at  Edessa.    The  common  ver- 


sion  is  called  the  Syriac  Peshitto,  and  is  cite'd  either 
as  Peshitto,  or  Syriac. 

Targum.  There  is  only  one  targum,  or  translation,  to 
the  prophets  in  Aramaic,  called  the  targum  of  Jona- 
than Ben  Uzziel.  See  Stennmg  in  Encyclopedia  Brit- 
tanica  XXVI,  421.  See  also  Versions. 

Tel-el-Amarna  Letters.  The  Tel-el-Amarna  or  El- 
Amarna  Letters  were  discovered  in  1888  at  Tel-el 
Amarna  in  Egypt  and  date  from  the  reigns  of  Amen- 
hotep  III  and  IV.  They  were  written  in  cuneiform, 
mostly  in  the  Babylonian  language,  from  Babylon, 
Assyria,  Syria,  Palestine,  and  other  countries,  to  the 
kings  of  Egypt,  and  some  of  them  from  the  kings  of 
Egypt  in  reply. 

Tetrateuch.  Teuch  is  from  a  word  which  in  post- 
Alexandrine  Greek  means  "book."  Penta  means 
"five,"  hem  "six/'  and  tetra  "four."  It  is  used  on 
page  52  for  the  books  from  Exodus  to  Deuteronomy 

Textus  Receptus.  The  "received  text";  the  text  pub- 
lished in  our  ordinary  Hebrew  Bibles. 

Tidal.  Tidal,  king  of  nations  (Gen.  xiv  1).  If  the  He- 
brew goyim,  "nations,"  is  a  rendering  of  kissati,  it  is 
found  as  a  title  of  Shalmanassar  I  of  Assyria  about 
1300  B.  C.  an'd  of  Ramman-Nirari  his  father  and  was 
probably  used  of  his  ancestors  back  as  far  at  least  as 
Asuruballit.  See  Schrader  in  The  Cuneiform  Li- 
brary (KAT  I.  9).  It  is  used  at  Babylon  also,  of 
Merodach-Baladan  I  about  1200  B.  C.  (id  IIP  162). 
If  we  assume  that  the  Hebrew  text  comes  from 
Kutim,  the  phrase  "king  of  Kutim"  is  found  as  early 
as  Naram-Sm,  long  before  Hammurabi  and  Abraham 
(See  Thureau-Dangin :  Sumerische  und  Akkadische 
Koniginschriften,  p.  225)  where  we  read  that  Shar- 
lak,  king  of  the  Kuti,  was  taken  by  Sargani-shar-ali, 
an'd  (p.  226)  where  something  was  done  to  the  land 


of  the  Kuti.    See  also  p.  171,  where  a  tablet  of  Las- 
irab  king  of  Gutim  is  given.) 

Translate.    To  give  the  sense,  as  in  "praise  Jehovah." 
Transliterate.    To  give  the  letters  of  the  original,  as  in 


Versions.  There  are  three  versions  of  the  books  of  Moses 
from  the  Hebrew  language  in  which  they  were  origi- 
nally written  into  the  Aramaic  which  many  of  the 
Israelites  learned  and  spoke  from  some  time  before 
the  time  of  Christ  and  for  many  centuries  after.    Tar- 
gum  is  the  Aramaic  word  for  version 
Latin  Vulgate.    The  Latin  Vulgate  is  the  transla- 
tion made  by  Jerome  from  Hebrew  into  Latin 
about  A.  D.  400.    It  is  the  Bible  used  today  by 
the    Roman    Catholic    church.    See    Kaulen: 
Geschichte  der  Vidgata,  and  Berger:  La  Bible 
Francaise  au  Moyen-age. 

Samaritan  Version.  The  Samaritan  version  is  the 
translation  of  the  Samaritan  Hebrew  recension 
of  the  books  of  Moses.  It  is  still  used  by  the 
small  Samaritan  synagogue  in  Nablous  in  Pales- 

Syriac  Peshitto.    The  Syriac  Peshitto  is  the  name 
of  the  version  commonly  used  in  the  Syrian 
churches.    Peshitto  means  simple  or  explained. 
Vowel  Signs.    See  Consonantal  text. 
Vocable.    A  word,  or  vocal  sound. 
Vulgate.    See  Versions, 

Wau  Conjunctive.  The  Hebrew  conjunction  w,  mean- 
ing "and." 

Wau  Conversive.  The  Hebrew  conjunction  w  "and" 
when  used  before  the  perfect,  or  imperfect  form  of 
the  verb,  with  the  power  of  converting  the  perfect 
into  the  sense  of  the  imperfect  or  the  imperfect  into 
the  sense  of  the  perfect. 

Zadokite  Fragments,    The  Zadokite  Fragments  are  the 
portions  of  a  work  in  Hebrew  supposed  to  have  been 


written  about  the  time  of  Christ.  See  Charles: 
Apocrypha  and  Pseudepigrapha  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, II.  785-854,  and  Schechter's  Documents  of  Jew- 
ish Sectaries. 


CT — Cuneiform  Texts  from  Babylonian  Tablets,  etc.,  in 
the  British  Museum. 

H.P.J.E.D.— See  Hextieuch,  above. 

KAT — Die  Keilinschriften  und  das  Alte  Testament,  by 
Eberhard  Schrader. 

KB — Die  Keilinschnftliche  Bibliothek  or  Cuneiform  Li- 
brary (contains  translations  into  German  of  the  lead- 
ing historical,  poetical,  and  contractual  inscriptions  of 
the  Assyrians  and  Babylonians). 

LOT— An  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, by  S  R  Driver 

LXX— An  abbreviation  for  The  Seventy  or  The  Sep- 

O.  T.— Old  Testament. 

PSBA — Proceedings  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Arche- 

PTR— Princeton  Theological  Review}. 

TSBA — Transactions  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Archae- 

VASD — Vorderasiatische  Schriftdenkmaler 

ZATW—Zeitschrift  fur  die  Alttestamenthche  Wissen- 

15  [225]